Sitting of 3 July 1922

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

PERSONAL STATEMENT BY LORD HARRIS.
LORD HARRIS: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should be grateful if I might make a personal statement. In the remarks I addressed to your Lordships last week, endorsing the Questions I asked, I stated that in consequence of the legal actions in which Sir Joseph Robinson had been engaged, he had been described in the Press as a fraudulent trustee. My attention was called to the following statement in the Daily Mail of Saturday:—
"A communication made by Sir Joseph Benjamin Robinson, who has asked the King's permission to decline the Peerage that was offered to him, says:
"'As regards Lord Harris's statement in the House of Lords on June 22, that it was stated in the public Press that I was a fraudulent trustee, this is absolutely untrue. Had a newspaper made such a statement, I should have certainly taken action against it for libel.'"
That reads to me as an accusation that I have misled your Lordships, and I thought, therefore, that it was only due to me,, out of respect to the House, to give my answer as promptly as I could. I was quoting from a paper entitled the National Champion, which was published on June 9, and the extract from which I quoted is on pages 13 and 14.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, I naturally do not desire to protract this discussion, but, as Sir Joseph Robinson is not present in the House, I merely enter two qualifications, without, of course, making the slightest complaint as to the personal explanation which the noble Lord, has made. The first qualification is that we must assume—a not inconsiderable assumption—that Sir Joseph Robinson has been accurately reported in the interview. It has happened to many of us to be inaccurately reported. Tin; second qualification is that the world-known paper the National Champion—of which, I confess, I am in blameworthy ignorince—is also known to Sir Joseph Robinson.

FOOD CONTROLLER AND MILK PRICES.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, I have given private notice to the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture of my intention to ask what steps the Ministry are going to take or are taking to see that those farmers in the four counties of Devonshire, Dorset, Cornwall and Somerset who have had twopence per gallon illegally deducted from the price of their milk are compensated, the House of Lords having decided upon appeal last Thursday that the Government's Food Controller had no power to impose such a charge.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: In answer to the Question I can only say that the decision of the House of Lords was given so recently as Thursday last, and at present the matter is under consideration by the Government.
LORD STRACHIE: I thank the noble Earl for his reply, and give notice that on Monday next I will draw attention to the matter and move a Resolution.

DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACT (1910) AMENDMENT BILL, [H.L.]
LORD LAMBOURNE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Diseases of Animals Act, 1910, with respect to the exportation of horses; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.— (Lord Lambourne.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

CLARE COLLEGE CAMBRIDGE (BLYTHE'S BENEFACTION) BILL, [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

WEAR NAVIGATION AND SUNDERLAND DOCK (CONSOLIDATION AND AMEND MENT) BILL. [H.L.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I beg to make the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 143 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Bill, and that the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: Bill read 3a accordingly, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on recommitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on recommitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (WATER) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on recommitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on recommitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND OTHER OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed.
GAMING BILL. [H.L.]
Message from the Commons that they do not insist upon their Amendment to the Gaming Bill, to which their Lordships disagreed.

MILK AND DAIRIES (AMENDMENT) 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 Onslow.)
LORD BLEDISLOE: A public engagement prevented my attendance in this House last Monday, and I therefore ask the indulgence of your Lordships in order to say a few words in respect of the Bill before going into Committee, seeing that

161
I was very closely concerned with the protracted negotiations which led up to the framing of the Act of 1915 (which is, by this Bill, about to be suspended), and that I am a somewhat large producer of milk on a commercial basis. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me, first of all, to say how very much indebted I feel to the noble Earl opposite for his clear and lucid exposition of the Bill which I have had the pleasure of reading in the OFFICIAL BEPORT. Personally, I do not propose in any sense to oppose the Bill. It is clear to me that public opinion, whether wisely inspired or otherwise, demands a Milk Bill, but whether this Milk Bill, when passed, will succeed in satisfying public opinion, or whether it will turn out to be a measure of very great practical utility, I beg leave to doubt.
The Milk Bills of the past, none of which has yet been put into operation, have been framed from the farmers' point of view, and to some extent from the consumers' point of view, with the object of obtaining uniformity of legislation, and consequently of administration, with regard to milk. I should like seriously to ask the noble Earl whether we get uniformity under this measure. Does it not in fact perpetuate, and to some extent encourage, diversity of practice and administration rather than uniformity? Lord Strachie drew attention to the fact that there was on the Statute Book a considerable number of omnibus Acts, containing milk clauses, the operation of which was intended to be entirely superseded by the Consolidation Act of 1915. The noble Lord asked the noble Earl opposite what was intended to be the action of the Government in relation to these omnibus Acts of Parliament, because, unless something is done, there will be the same diversity of administration by local authorities, against which dairy farmers have declaimed, and with success, for many years past. But this diversity surely is accentuated by Clause 2, because Clause 2 is not mandatory but permissive. The practice of local authorities in regard to milk may vary, and undoubtedly will vary, very considerably. Some may be satisfied with a low standard of milk in respect to dirt and disease, and others may insist upon an exceptionally high standard, guided probably by an active, and possibly dictatorial, medical officer of health.
Moreover, the Bill appears to assume that Section 34 of the Diseases of Animals
162
Act (an Act, I think, of 1878) and the Dairy, Cowsheds, and Milkshops Order of 1885, which was issued under it, and which, in fact, compels all milk retailers to be registered, are universally enforced. It is common knowledge among milk producers, as among milk retailers, that the Milkshops Order is not being enforced. Although under the Order every retailer is bound to be registered, as a matter of fact he is not. In many parts of the country there is no registration at all. Seeing that the Order of 1885 in this respect is largely a dead letter, when Clause 2 comes into operation the Bill, so far as this important provision is concerned, will surely have no effect over a large part of the country. You cannot remove from the register, as contemplated by Clause 2, persons who are not on the register. That applies, I believe, to at least half the milk retailers of this country. Does the noble Earl contemplate the universal enforcement of this Order as a condition precedent to this Bill being put into effective operation? If not, the legislation will be even more piecemeal in its operation than it has been in the past.
I should like to draw the noble Earl's attention to the effect upon perfectly innocent milk producers of the operation of Clause 2. Clause 2 will have the effect in many cases of sentencing a man first and trying him after. Surely, where milk is under suspicion, the onus ought to be upon the local authorities, first of all, to give notice to the person who is alleged to have transgressed the law, and, after giving him notice, unless he acquiesces to apply to the magistrates in order to get that person removed from the register of milk retailers. It is a little hard that because the local authority, rightly or wrongly, suspects a certain farmer or other person retailing milk of selling milk which contains either dirt or disease germs, that person should at once suffer the entire discontinuance of his milk supply, and, no doubt, suffer a diminution of his possibly good reputation, until such time as the magistrates are able to hear an application, not from the local authority, but from him on appeal from a possibly capricious decision of such local authority. What I would suggest is that the only fair way of dealing with this matter is that the local authority should give a written notice of its intention to remove an alleged offending person from the register, and that subsequently, if he objects to accept their

163
decision, the local authority itself should apply to the magistrates for the removal of such person from the register. Otherwise, a quite innocent milk retailer may suffer a serious injustice.
I know that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, is interested in obtaining power over the activities of the milk wholesaler. That may or may not be desirable. So long as he has not got designs upon the dairy farmer I should travel a long way with him, but personally I feel very strongly that the wholesale interest in milk distribution is one which should in every way be discouraged. There are far too many middlemen in the milk industry to-day, and they are largely a parasitic growth, which operates to the detriment both of the producer and of the ultimate consumer. I wish that some legislation could be devised to secure only a limited profit on milk to one middleman only, so as to ensure some fairness of treatment to producer and consumer alike.
Criticism has been made of the last Milk and Dairies Act on the ground of the host of officials who will be set up. The noble Earl opposite has given as his chief reason for suspending the operation of that Act the fact that under this Bill a very small number of officials will be required, but I noticed that in his Second Reading speech he did not give the House any idea of the extent to which such a reduction would be possible after the passage of this Bill. I should rather like to learn from the noble Earl, if it is possible, as he estimates that the former Act, if put into operation, would have involved a cost of between £750,000 to £1,000,000 a year, whether he has formed any estimate of the cost of putting this Bill into operation when it becomes an Act of Parliament. If he has not, we are not in a position to judge of the relative values of the two legislative enactments.
Perhaps the noble Earl would allow me to remind him of the attitude which his distinguished father, who was for many years Chairman of Committees in this House, took on this question of liability regarding impure milk, and the setting up of a large number of officials. He always held the view—I for one most heartily supported him, and we travelled the same furrow for many years together on these subjects— that the retailer should only be made chargeable for the sale of dirty or diseased milk, and should have a right of indemnity as against the person who supplied him
164
with that milk. Such a simple process as that would render quite unnecessary the whole host of officials sought to be set up under this or any other similar legislation. That is to say, you fine the retailer, possibly bring him under the Food and Drugs Act, and, if he chooses to seek redress as against the person who furnished him with the milk, well and good. But I why should the Ministry of Health or the general public seek to look further, or to look behind the retailer who actually sells such milk to the public? That, at any rate, was the line that the late Lord Onslow took on these, matters, and I have always held that it was the proper, and certainly the cheapest, line to take. It would undoubtedly safeguard the public and render unnecessary all this host of proposed officials, whose activities are bound to be meddlesome, so far, at any rate, as the dairy farmer is concerned.
I Although the Bill does not say so, I understand that when the standard of milk comes to be assessed by the Ministry of Health they are going to assess it solely on the number of bacteria or other micro-organisms which such milk may contain.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I do not think I gave any indication as to the exact nature of the Order. I said we were going to consult with the various interests concerned, but an Order for "Grade A" milk would be made sufficiently elastic or easy for any decent farmer to produce such milk.
LORD BLEDISLOE: Yes, but I imagine I the standard of milk is going to be judged solely by its liability to convey disease, and not on the basis of its capacity for nutrition, or otherwise upon its quality. I should like to point out to the noble Earl that we are the only civilised nation in the world that seeks to base the standard of milk merely upon its capacity to convey disease and not upon what is equally important—the percentage of butter fat that it contains. In this country milk is milk just as eggs are eggs, without any regard to the fact that to reach the legal standard milk need only contain 3 per I cent, of butter fat. Plenty of milk is put on the market by reputable persons with good cows, which has 5 per cent, of butter fat, and there is plenty of milk of a lower standard. That operates very unfairly against the dairy farmer all over the country, and it has the unfortunate result

165
that town dairymen who are not very scrupulous are much tempted to mix, and in fact many of them do mix, milk containing a high percentage of butter fat—and that includes a large amount of milk which is very carefully produced under most hygienic conditions—with milk containing a low standard of butter fat which is not produced under such conditions, and the mixed product is sold to the public containing just the necessary minimum of butter fat and no more. I should like very much to see this Bill strengthened so as to put a stop to that practice which is not only unfair, but is, I think, very largely going to defeat the object of the noble Earl's Bill.
In the few words I am saying, I do not desire to comment upon this separation of milk into different classes described as "Certified," "Grade A," and "Pasteurised." But I venture to doubt very much whether this high quality milk at which the Ministry of Health is aiming will not, as the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, suggested, ultimately become the expensive luxury of the rich and be wholly unobtainable by the majority of the poor. And, so far as disease is concerned, I doubt whether the policy of the noble Earl, as expressed in this Bill, will not be found ultimately to be based on a complete misconception. It is noteworthy—I do not know whether the noble Earl's attention has been drawn to the fact—that the reduction in the prevalence of human consumption has proceeded concurrently with the increase of bovine tuberculosis. I suggest that if more milk were consumed, whether it contained bovine tubercle or not, the rate of reduction would be greatly accelerated.
There are eminent medical men in this country, including a distinguished doctor now sitting in the House of Commons, Dr. Nathan Raw, who hold the view that not merely the inoculation but the ingestion of the bacilli of bovine tuberculosis has actually immunized thousands of young children against the human disease and has had the effect, therefore, when bovine tuberculosis has been prevalent, of reducing the prevalence of human tuberculosis in this country. We may find, in that case, that legislation along the lines of this Bill is misleading and unfortunate. It will be interesting to know, and I rather suggest to the Ministry of Health that it is worth finding out, whether in those localities where "Certified" and "Grade
166
A" milk is largely consumed human phthisis becomes less or more prevalent than it was before.
As regards Clause 5, it seems to me that the weakness of this clause, desirable as it is, no doubt, in putting a stop to the production of milk from animals that are visibly affected with tuberculosis of the udder, is that it is no one's business to put the clause into operation. You cannot have a common informer moving in such a matter, and it is very difficult to discover how ordinary cow byres are going to be entered by those whose business it is to put the law into motion and to prosecute the person having an obviously tuberculous cow. If that clause applies to tuberculosis of the udder, surely it ought equally to apply to animals which are visibly emaciated by tuberculosis and obviously yielding milk which is as tuberculous as that from a cow having a tuberculous udder.
I will not take up your Lordships' time further than to say that I regret this Bill, in one sense. I regret that the old Act has to be suspended in order to bring into force a Bill of this sort, because, obviously, it is a Bill of a piecemeal character and will not finally settle these difficult problems of ill-health arising from the consumption of dirty or diseased milk. It is clear that more drastic legislation will have to be proceeded to as the result of passing this.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I remind this House, with the consent of your Lordships, that it is not in the ordinary course convenient that a noble Lord who has not been able to attend the Second Reading debate on a Bill should use the occasion of the Motion to go into Committee to make a very elaborate speech lasting some twenty-five minutes to half-an-hour on purely Second Reading topics. If the practice is persisted in I fail to see where it will end. The noble Lord was good enough to tell me that he was going to make a short speech, and when I asked him how long he thought it would take he said: "Five minutes." It is obvious that he was too sanguine. Either the topics dealt with by the noble Lord are capable of being dealt with, and are being dealt with, by Amendments in Committee, or they are not. If they are not being dealt with by Amendments in Committee the noble Lord's observations should be made on Third Reading. If they are capable of being dealt

167
with by Amendments, they should be so dealt with.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL of DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Power to refuse registration of, or remove from register, retailers of milk.
2.—(1) Any local authority, by whom a register of purveyors of milk is kept under or in pursuance of any enactment in that behalf, may, if it appears to them necessary in the interests of the public health, refuse to register any person, being a retailer of milk, who seeks to be registered therein, or may remove any such person from the register either absolutely or in respect of any specified premises.
(2) Any person aggrieved by such refusal or removal may, within twenty-one days from the date thereof, appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction, and the court may, if satisfied that such refusal or removal is not necessary in the interests of the public health, make an order directing the local authority to register the person or restore him to the register as the case may be.
(3) The court before whom any person so Regis tered as aforesaid is convicted of any offence under the said Acts or any order or regulations made thereunder, may, on the application of the local authority, in addition to any other penalty, order the removal from the register of the person so convicted either absolutely or in respect of any specified premises for such period as the court may think fit.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (1), to substitute "shall" for the first "may." The noble Lord said: After the flagellation I have just received, of course I shall be most modest in putting my Amendments. As regards the first of them I only want to obtain uniformity by insisting that if any local authority acts in the matter all shall act. I want to substitute the word "shall" for the word "may."
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 15, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): Before proceeding to deal with the noble Lord's Amendment I should like to say one word. During the last week a number of representatives of the National Farmers' Union called to see me in regard to this clause. They discussed it at some length. They were not unanimous; in fact, they have not yet arrived at a definite opinion as to what
168
they wished to do in regard to certain points which they raised. I suggested, as we had to take the Committee stage to-day, that when we came to the Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, which was the only one on the Paper then, we should suggest the postponement of the consideration of this clause until Report. Since then Lord Bledisloe has put down the Amendment which he has just moved. I therefore suggest that we should discuss this matter, and I propose to accept most of his points, with the proviso that if the National Farmers' Union, the people who saw me, have any points to raise they should be given and brought up on Report stage. I propose with your Lordships' consent to take that course.
As regards the noble Lord's Amendment in line 15 I think the word "shall" is perhaps a little narrow and would not give the local authority that elasticity which it is desirable that it should have. On the other hand, the noble Lord has drawn attention, in his speech on the Motion to go into Committee, to the fact that there are some areas where the registration is not enforced. I gathered from what he said just now that this Amendment is designed to effect that. I rather doubt whether it will, and I should think that perhaps an amendment to give county councils wider powers would have a better effect. Perhaps the noble Lord will consider that. I do not wish to oppose the Amendment, but I think it is a little narrow.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I may say that I moved this Amendment after a long consultation with the Farmers' Union, but without getting their acquiescence to the exact terms of the Amendment, because there was not time. In the circumstances, so long as the noble Earl knows the point, I do not wish to press the Amendment at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Subject to the proviso which I stated in discussing the previous Amendment, I accept the next Amendment on the Paper.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, lines 15 and 16, leave out ("if it appears to them necessary in the interests of the public health") and insert ("if they are satisfied that the public health is endangered by any act or default of his in relation to the quality, storage, or distribution of milk").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved, in subsection (1), after "health," to insert "may apply through a court of summary jurisdiction for leave to." The noble Lord said: I hope the noble Lord is not going to say, with regard to these Amendments, that he has to consider what the opinion of the National Farmers' Union is. It is a very important body, I admit, but I rather deprecate the view that your Lordships are not to consider Amendments, or that the Government are not to give definite answers upon them, until they have consulted the National Farmers' Union. I would point out that there are other important bodies besides the National Farmers' Union which also are very largely interested in this question, such as the Central Landowners' Association. They are an important body, as your Lordships are aware, and they are very much interested in this Bill. I would also remind the noble Earl that as the Government insisted on putting this Bill down at an early date, there has not been time for it to be considered by the other bodies. I urged that consideration upon the Government at the time, pointing out that these bodies would wish to express their opinion; nevertheless, the Bill has been put down.
The Amendment which I am now moving, and which I hope the noble Earl will be inclined to accept, provides that before an authority has power to come in and practically to shut up a man's business they must get some authority from a court of summary jurisdiction. As the matter now stands in the Bill, they are both judge and jury. What would be the procedure of an ordinary local authority in this matter? No doubt, some of your Lordships have sat upon sanitary authorities, or rural district councils, and you know that what they will do in this matter will be simply this. They will have an official who will visit the farm of a man to be registered, or in regard to whom an application has been made for his licence to be revoked, if he is already on the register. That official will make his report to the local authority, and the local authority, in many cases, will simply take the report of the official who might have very extreme views as to the condition in which the premises to be registered ought to be.
All I am suggesting in this Amendment is that before a man is tried and condemned, practically by an official of a small sanitary authority, he should have notice that
170
application is to be made to a court of I summary jurisdiction on the ground that he ought not to be registered, or that his licence ought to be revoked, because his premises are not in a proper condition and danger to the public health arises therefrom. It will be competent for the local authority to take those steps, and in the meantime the man will not be able to go on with his business. That will result merely from the ipse dixit of an official of the sanitary authority. That, I submit, is not fair. It is true that the man can appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction, but some courts meet only once a month, and others once a fortnight, and if an appeal to Quarter Sessions should be involved two or three months may elapse before the case is decided. During the whole of that time this unfortunate man has been condemned, without the evidence against him being sifted and adjudicated upon by a proper tribunal; the whole of his business is shut up, and he may be ruined.
It seems to me very unfair that a man should not have an opportunity of going before a Court of Justice and explaining his case before he is told that he must shut up his business. He may have hundreds of gallons of milk left on his hands, which he will not be able to sell, because of the stigma resting upon him that it is milk which would be prejudicial to the public health. There would be no compensation for him if this decision was ultimately reversed on an appeal to Quarter Sessions: In the meantime, his business would have been ruined. Even if compensation were provided, very often it would not meet the case. A man's business might be so ruined by such an imputation resting upon him for a time that no monetary compensation could meet the case. I hope, therefore, the noble Lord will accept this Amendment
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 16, after ("health") insert ("may apply to a court of summary jurisdiction for leave to").—(Lord Strachie.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The noble Lord has misapprehended what I said just now. I did not mean that the National Farmers' Union were the only body to be consulted, but that they were the only people I had seen. If any other bodies—either the Central Landowners' Association or others—-have views to put forward, I suggest that they should be considered on Report. That was all I

171
meant. As to the point raised in this Amendment, I think there is a slight misapprehension on the subject. It is not intended by the Bill, and by Lord Bledisloe's Amendment, when a local authority tells a man that lie must be removed from the register, and he appeals against that decision, that ipso facto he shall then cease to sell milk. I agree that that would be unfair. I think he should continue to sell his milk until it has been definitely decided that he should be removed from the register.
The suggestion of ray noble friend would make the procedure rather cumbersome, and would necessitate an application to the court before anything is done. Under the proposal of Lord Bledisloe, as I read it, the local authority serves a notice, and then, if the person is aggrieved, the local authority has to go and get an order. I think that meets the point. As a matter of fact, I have just had a draft made of an Amendment which I think covers the points of both noble Lords. It is too long to read to your Lordships now, and I do not think that it would be desirable to deal with it at this stage. Perhaps I may have an opportunity of consulting the two noble Lords on this draft form of words, which I am told meets the points of both of them. The matter can then come, up on Report.
LORD STRACHIE: I understand that the noble Earl objects only to the form and not to the principle of this Amendment?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I do not think it fair that a man should be put out of business pending his appeal.
LORD STRACHIE: Then perhaps I may withdraw my Amendment.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: If the noble Lord agrees, we can move it in the form I suggest on Report.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I am prepared to take it on trust on those lines.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT ASTOR VISCOUNT ASTOR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "retailer of milk" and insert "dairyman." The noble Viscount said: As I explained the other day on Second Reading, it seems to me that the clause as now drafted works unfairly, and
172
in a rather lopsided manner. The clause affects the producer retailer, but it does not affect the wholesaler. In selecting the words which I have put on the Paper I took as my precedent a section of the Scottish Act of 1914—Section 7, subsection (1)—where the word "dairyman" is used in connection with registration. I also found a precedent in the 1915 English Act, Section 1, subsection 1 (a). In view of the fact that the English Act is being postponed, and that it is that Act which contains the definition of the word "dairyman." I see some difficulty in moving the Amendment as it appears on the Paper. It would be better draftsmanship to move that the words "being a retailer of milk" be omitted; but as the noble Earl is meeting representatives of the agricultural and dairy industry to discuss this and similar proposals it might perhaps suit your Lordships' convenience if I withdraw the Amendment now with a view of raising it on Report stage.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 17, leave out ("retailer of milk") and insert ("dairyman").—(Viscount Astor.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I think I ought to say that I have carefully considered the Amendment and it would be wrong for me to hold out any hopes of being able to accept it. I know that the logical mind of the noble Viscount realises that all those engaged in the trade should be treated on the same footing and should be subject to the same procedure. In fact, they are subject to the same disabilities and restrictions. A former Minister of the Ministry of Agriculture took the view that control should begin at a point where the milk passed from the trade to the consumer. This Bill secures that, and by doing so it controls the trade backward through the wholesaler and producer. If a retailer sells milk for which it is proposed to take him off the register he will at once go back to the producer and say that he will not buy any more milk from him. If the producer is also a retailer then he comes under the Bill. If the producer also sells milk wholesale then he comes under the Bill, and will be taken off the register as a retailer, and it is unlikely that any wholesaler would buy milk from such a person. There are considerable administrative difficulties against accepting the suggestion of Lord Astor, and I hope he will not press it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BLEDISLOE: My next two Amendments are consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 1, line 18, after ("may") insert ("decide to")
Page 1, line 20, at end insert ("and shall thereupon serve upon him notice in writing of such refusal or decision, as the case may be").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I do not know whether the noble Earl will treat my subsequent Amendments to this clause as consequential?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Yes, I agree to them.
Amendments moved—
Page 2, line 1, at the beginning of subsection (2) insert ("if")
Page 2, line 1, after ("person") insert ("be") leave out ("removal") and insert ("decision")
Page 2, line 2, at the beginning insert ("the local authority")
Page 2, line 2, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall")
Page 2, line 3, leave out ("appeal") and insert ("apply").—(Lord Bhdisloe.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
EARL GREY EARL GREY moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "may," where that word secondly occurs, and to insert "shall." The noble Earl said: Only one question is referred to the court, and the court has to satisfy itself that the removal from the register is necessary in the interests of public health. If it is satisfied I suggest that it is not a case for discretion.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 4, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").—(Earl Grey.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: This is really a matter which could be better dealt with by noble Lords who are learned in the law. It is a question of legal drafting. As the subsection stands the court would have no alternative in the matter, and "may" in this case, and in other cases I am told, means "shall."
EARL GREY: I do not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, at the end of subsection (2), to insert—
"Where, on any such appeal to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, the court make or refuse to make such order as aforesaid the local authority or the person aggrieved as aforesaid as the case may be, may appeal to Quarter Sessions who may, where an order has been made, revoke the order, or, where an order has been refused, make any order which the Court of Summary Jurisdiction might have made."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is moved in pursuance of an undertaking given to make it quite certain that an appeal to Quarter Sessions is allowed. The noble Lord, Lord Strachie, has an Amendment on the Paper to the same effect, but my Amendment is a little more explicit than his.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 7, at end insert the said words.— (The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD TREOWEN: There is a slight ambiguity in the clause, to which I have already called the noble Earl's attention. It has been brought to my notice by one of the leading agricultural organisations, and I should like to have an assurance that the matter will be dealt with on Report. In subsection (3) the court may order tie person so convicted to be removed from the register "either absolutely or in respect of any specified premises for such period as the court may think fit." The question is also dealt with in subsection (2), and the point is whether the power is only given to remove entirely in respect of certain premises. The owner of the premises might be desirous of putting them into proper condition, and in that case it would be very hard that he should be subject to a penalty for a longer time than is necessary. I hope the noble Earl will consider this point.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I shall be glad to go into the matter further—I cannot, of course, give an answer now—and, if necessary, rectify it on Report.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:
Licences by Minister of Health to sell milk under special designations.
3.—(1) A person shall not, either by himself or by any servant or agent, except under and in accordance with a licence granted by the Minister of Health or with his authority—

175

(a) sell or offer or expose for sale any milk as "certified," "Grade A," "pasteurised" or under such other designation as may be from time to time prescribed by order of the Minister; or

(b) on or in connection with any sale or offer for sale or proposed sale of any milk or in any advertisement, circular, or notice relating to any milk, describe or refer to the same as "certified," "Grade A," "pasteurised" or by any other designation prescribed as aforesaid, or use any description or designation including or resembling any such description or designation.

(2) A licence may be granted for the purposes of this section for such period and subject to such terms and conditions (including conditions as to the payment of fees) as the Minister may think fit.
EARL GREY EARL GREY moved, in subsection (1), immediately before paragraph (a), to insert "under the provisions of an order made under this Act." The noble Earl said: This Amendment and two later Amendments on the Paper in my name are designed to ensure that the Minister shall proceed by way of Orders which shall lie on the Table of both Houses of Parliament. That is the way he proceeds under the Milk and Dairies (1915) Consolidation Act. I think it is very important that we should have the same procedure under this Bill. There is nothing in this Amendment which is calculated to injure the objects of the Bill, but it is important that the machinery should be correct. If we do not secure adequate consideration of any changes that might be proposed by the Ministry of Health it is possible that serious injury might be done to the milk trade. We have not to go very far back to remember cases where the products which the Ministry, with admirable intentions, hoped to increase and make cheaper disappeared from the market. Unfortunately, economic considerations are very often strangely ignorant of the intentions of Ministers, and if we can ensure that all Orders shall lie on the Table of this House and shall receive that public examination and criticism which will prevent such mistakes, I think it will be a much wiser course to pursue.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 19, at end insert ("under the provision of an order made under this Act").—(Earl Grey.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I am ready to accept the noble Lord's Amendment, and the consequential Amendments, with one proviso which, with your Lordships' leave,
176
I will mention—namely, that "twenty days" should be substituted for "forty days" in the main Amendment. Perhaps, when that is moved, I will explain the reason for that proviso.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved, in subsection (2), after "fees," to insert "which shall provide for the expenses incurred by the Ministry for granting such licences." The noble Lord said: Under the Bill, as it stands, the Minister has, apparently, the right to decide the terms and conditions of the payment of fees as he may think fit. My Amendment provides that the fees shall be paid by the people to whom the licences are given; that is to say, that they shall not be charged upon the rates. That is I the whole object of my Amendment, and the noble Earl will probably be in sympathy with me. We have every confidence in the present Minister, and certainly in the present Parliamentary Secretary, but they will not always hold those offices. It ought to be made plain that the people who will gain considerable advantage by selling this milk ought to pay the expenses, and I that, at any rate, they should not fall upon the local rates.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 34, after ("fees") insert ("which shall provide for the expenses incurred by the Ministry for granting such licences").—(Lord Strachie.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: It is intended that the fees payable for licences shall be such that when the scheme is in full operation they will recoup both the ! central authority, the Ministry, and the local authorities for their expenses in connection with the grant of licences, including, of course, the cost of inspection and bacteriological examination. This, I think, answers the question which the noble Lord, Lord Bledisloe, raised in his speech on the Motion to go into Committee as to the cost of the Bill, in comparison with the Act of 1915. It is intended that the fees payable for licences shall recoup all expenses.
But we have to start the Bill, and I think the Amendment, as worded by the noble Lord, would make it very difficult to do so. It is really impracticable to require, at the initial stage, that the fees should cover the entire cost, because the licence-holders would be very small in

177
number, and it would, I think, be inequitable to put the whole cost upon them. At the present, moment there are only eighty such licensees, but as time goes on, and, I hope, very soon—because the Order to which Lord Bledisloe referred in regard to "Grade A" milk will, I trust, be drawn as soon as the Bill comes into operation, and it will be of such a wide nature that a very large number of people will take advantage of it—the cost will be entirely borne from the fees paid for licences. I hope the noble Lord will not think it necessary to press the Amendment.
LORD STRACHIE: The noble Earl has given an assurance for the present, but I do not think he has given me an assurance for the future. It may be possible that some Minister will make Orders, with the result that the expense will fall on the local rates. If he will consider the matter between now and Report, I am ready to withdraw the Amendment.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I see the noble Lord's point, and will go into the matter again.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 35, leave out ("the Minister may think fit") and insert ("may be prescribed by an order made under this Act").—(Earl Grey.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I do not know if the noble Earl is in a position to tell us anything as to what is proposed by way of description of "Certified" milk and "Grade A" milk in the Order. As he has told us, there are only eighty people who are now licensees, but I am given to understand that there are 22,000 dairy farmers in the country who will be affected by this Bill, and I venture to hope that "Grade A" will be so assessed as to make it possible for the majority of dairy farmers who conduct their businesses in the proper way, and on clean lines, to sell "Grade A" milk. Otherwise, their milk will be condemned by implication. I do not know whether the noble Earl is able to tell us what bacterial content he has in mind as the standard by which "Grade A" milk shall be described or assessed.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I went into this point at some length on the Second Reading. "Certified" milk will be practically the same as the present Grade A (Certified)" milk. "Grade A" milk will, I hope, be extended in such a way that all decent farmers will be able to produce it without difficulty. I said last week that we were going to consult with all sections of the milk trade before drafting the Order. When it is drafted, as I have accepted the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Grey, it will be laid before your Lordships' House, and an opportunity will be afforded of going into the subject. I cannot answer the noble Lord's question, because the matter has not yet been settled.
LORD STRACHIE: I trust the noble Earl will take care to consult with such bodies as the Central Chamber of Agriculture, the Central Landowners' Association, and tin; British Dairy Farmers' Association, and not confine himself to consultation with the bodies most directly interested. I hope we may have rather a wider consultation. I should like to ask whether his attention has been drawn to the objection taken by the Association of Medical Officers of Health, in regard to putting the Government seal upon "Pasteurised" milk. It is as follows—
"That in view of the importance at the present time of arriving at satisfactory conclusions as to the effect of sterilisation and pasteurisation of milk on its hygienic value, the Government be asked to consider the question carefully, so that a statement may be issued for the guidance of the public; and that if the results attained indicate the desirability of encouraging or even permitting the sale of milk so treated, the process and processes should be accurately defined, and powers given to secure that such are observed; and, further, that milk submitted to such treatment should be sold in such a manner as will render it, at the time of sale, readily distinguishable from fresh milk."
I hope the noble Earl will consider the question whether this "Pasteurised" milk, which the Government are going to allow to be sold with their certificate, ought not to be sold only as "Pasteurised" milk.
There is another important point which may have been brought to the notice of the noble Earl, and that is that people mix pasteurised milk and whole milk together, in some cases, I believe, with very bad results. It seems to me that when the public are buying milk, they ought to know whether it is pasteurised or not and that pasteurised milk ought not to be sold without the public being aware of the fact.

179
I think this point should be brought out very clearly when the noble Earl goes into conference.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I quite agree with the noble Lord. The object of the word "Pasteurised" is to ensure that nobody may describe milk as "Pasteurised" unless it has been pasteurised by a certain process. As to what that process is, we propose to consult with those interested in the matter before issuing the Order which describes it. The noble Lord has suggested that we should confer with certain bodies. I trust they will give us the benefit of their advice, because, in this and other matters connected with the Bill, the views of all those interested are of the utmost importance.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved, after Clause 4, to insert the following new clause—
"No proceedings shall be taken for the adulteration of milk under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899, against any person unless at the time the sample was taken the milk was in his custody or control or was contained in a churn or other receptacle which had been sealed or closed in accordance with a Milk and Dairies Order."
The noble Lord said: I have taken this new clause out of the Act of 1915. I think it is subsection (4) of Clause 8 of that Act. The, noble Earl will see that the Amendment describes its own object, which is to provide protection for traders and the public, who are liable, at the present time, to be prosecuted before a court of justice, and fined for selling adulterated milk, although that milk may have been out of their hands for hours, or even a whole day. As the law stands, I am informed that it is possible for a man to be prosecuted, fined and treated as a criminal in this matter, on the charge that milk has been adulterated, when it has entirely left his possession. I hope the noble Lord will be ready to put into the present Act a safeguard which was provided in the Act of 1915, to give protection to an innocent man, and to say that nobody shall be prosecuted for the possession of adulterated milk unless he has the control of the milk. It seems only fair and just that a man should only be responsible for the condition of the milk while he has possession and control.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 4, insert the said new clause.— (Lord Strachie.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The difficulty about the clause is that the Act of 1915 contains powers to make orders for locked and sealed churns, but in the absence of such powers from the present Bill the effect of the noble Lord's Amendment would be to penalise; the careful farmer who used locked or sealed churns, because the man who did not use locked churns would have a complete defence if the sample were taken after the milk ceased to be under his control. As regards the general question, I think it is met to a certain extent by Lord Astor's Amendment, which comes later and provides for proceedings against the person actually responsible. Unless there were, an order requiring locked churns, I think the noble Lord's Amendment would be impossible. It is not the same as the Act of 1915, which gives power to make an order, whereas under the present Bill there is no such power to make the locking of churns obligatory. I hope therefore that the Amendment will not be pressed.
LORD STRACHIE: May I ask whether the noble Earl would be willing, on Report, to accept an Amendment, if I were to introduce it, as regards the locking of churns? I cannot say that I entirely agree with him that my Amendment would hurt the farmer who at the present moment locks his churns. The whole of my point is not really covered by the use of locked churns. My point is that a man should not be responsible for the milk after it has left his possession and control. You may lock your churns, but it is almost impossible to prevent something being put in, or something being taken out from, a locked churn.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: It depends upon the form of churn.
LORD STRACHIE: There is another thing, and that is that locked or sealed churns are said to be bad in hot weather, the milk being liable to go bad.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I think there is another objection to the Amendment. It cannot be accepted in its present form, because as it now stands the person who sends out the milk cannot be prose-

181
cuted. A man may send out adulterated milk, and if the roundsman proceeds to sell it the roundsman would have to be prosecuted if the condition of the milk were discovered while he was on the round. I think, therefore, that the Amendment could not be accepted in its present form.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I think Lord Onslow gave, by anticipation, a complete answer to the observations of the noble Earl who spoke last, because he has pointed out that it is sufficient for the public purpose if the person who sells the milk can be prosecuted; he will have his remedy against the person whoever it is who supplies the milk. If the roundsman is the servant of the retailer the retailer will suffer, but if the retailer bought it from the producer he will have a right of indemnity against the person who supplied him with the milk.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 5 agreed to.
EARL GREY EARL GREY moved, after Clause 5, to insert the following new clause—
". All orders made by the Minister of Health under this Act or under any enactment relating to Milk and Dairies shall be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made; and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty days on which that House has sat next after the order is laid before it, praying that the order may be annulled, it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or to the making of a new order. If the session of Parliament ends before such twenty days as aforesaid have expired, the order shall be laid before each House of Parliament at the commencement of the next session as if it had not previously been laid."
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 (Orders to be made with concurrence of Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries):
EARL GREY: I should like to ask the noble Earl why there is a certain amount of difference between this clause and the corresponding section of the Act of 1915. Under that Act all Orders by the Ministry of Health with respect to milk and dairies had to be made with the concurrence of the Minister of Agriculture. Under this clause only such Orders as are made by the
182
Minister of Health under Section 34 of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1878, as amended by the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1880, shall be made with the concurrence of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. I do not suggest that it is a matter of very great importance, but undoubtedly it would give rather more confide ice to farmers generally if the same rule applied in this case as was accepted in the 1915 Act. I should like to ask the noble Earl whether he could not, on Report, accept an Amendment to make this Bill correspond with the previous Act.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The point is this: Under Clause 6 the Orders contemplated are those in which both the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Health I are responsible. Clause 3 deals entirely with Ministry of Health business, and therefore the Ministry of Agriculture is not; included. That is the reason for the difference.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
Regulations by Minister of Health.
7. The Minister of Health shall make regulations under the Public Health (Regulations as to Food) Act, 1907, for the prevention of danger arising to public health from the importation of milk intended for sale for human consumption.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved, at the end of the clause, to add "or for use in the manufacture of products for human consumption." The noble Lord said: Here again I am proposing that we should incorporate in this Bill a clause, or rather part of a clause, in the Act of 1915, because in the Bill as it now stands the noble Earl has incorporated Clause 7. He has taken that clause out of the Act of 1915, but has left out the concluding words, which were "or for use in the manufacture of products for human consumption." The noble Earl may have very good reason for not putting them in.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I will accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 21, after ("consumption") insert ("or for use in the manufacture of products for human consumption.")—(Lord Strachie.)
LORD BLEDISLOE: I should like to ask whether the noble Earl thinks this is sufficiently comprehensive. It is still quite

183
open, and surely milk products ought to be added to the milk in this clause. It is public knowledge that there has been coming from the United States during the last ten years a good deal of condensed milk recommended for invalids. It has had the cream taken off, and is quite unsuitable for the purpose.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The Amendment of Lord Strachie widens the area of the original proposal, and now the noble Lord, Lord Bledisloe, proposes to extend it still further. I have not considered this further extension, because it is not down on the Order Paper, but if he will put it down on the Report stage we can go into it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8:
Penalties.
8. If any person is guilty of a contravention of, or non-compliance with, the provisions of this Act or any of them, he shall, save as otherwise provided in this Act, be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding in the case of a first offence, five pounds, and in the case of a second or subsequent offence, fifty pounds, and if the offence is a continuing offence, to a further fine not exceeding forty shillings for each day during which the offence continues.
LORD STRACHIE,LORD STRACHIE, on behalf of Viscount ASTOR, moved, at the end of the clause, to insert—
"provided that when it is made to appear to the satisfaction of the authority by or on whose behalf proceedings are about to be taken—

(a) that the actual occupier of the dairy or owner of the business of milk purveyor by wholesale or retail has used all due diligence to enforce the execution of this Act and the Milk and Dairies Orders; and

(b) by what person the offence has been committed; and

(c) that it has been committed without the knowledge, consent or connivance of the occupier of the dairy or the owner of the business of milk purveyor by wholesale or retail and in contravention of his orders;

proceedings shall be taken against the person who is believed to be the actual offender without first proceeding against the occupier of the dairy."
The noble Lord said: I may say that in omitting at the end of the Amendment the words "or the owner of the business of milk purveyor by wholesale or retail," I am acting with the concurrence of the noble Viscount.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I accept the Amendment under the reservation that drafting Amendments may have to be made on the Report stage. I am not sure that it is watertight.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The Amendment, I understand, is moved as printed, with the exception that the words at the end are omitted—"or the owner of the business of milk purveyor by wholesale or retail."
LORD STRACHIE: Yes.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I accept that, without prejudice.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9:
Administration of Act.
9. The Minister of Health may by order declare by what local authorities the provisions of this Act shall be enforced and out of what fund or rate the expenses of such enforcement shall be defrayed.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved to omit all words after "enforced" and to insert the following new subsection—
"(2) The expenses of local authorities under this Act shall be defrayed—

(a) in the case of a county council, out of the county fund, as expenses for general county purposes, or if an Order of the Ministry of Health so directs as respects any such expenses as expenses for special county purposes charged on such part of the county as may be provided by the Order;

(b) in the ease of the common council of the City of London, out of the general rate;

(c) in the case of the council of a metropolitan borough as part of the expenses incurred by the council in the execution of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891;

(d) in the case of the council of a municipal borough or urban or rural district, as part of their general expenses incurred in the execution of the enactments relating to public health."

The noble Earl said: This subsection is moved to meet the views of Lord Strachie. It is practically the same as an Amendment in the name of Lord Strachie, but it goes a little further. The proposal has been carefully considered. It was necessary to introduce the county councils as well; otherwise, the two Amendments are exactly the same.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 33, leave out from ("enforced") to the end of line 34, and insert the said new sub-section—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10:
Application to Scotland.
10. This Act shall apply to Scotland, with the following modifications—
(d) Paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section three of this Act shall have effect as if there were inserted after the term "certified," the term "Grade A (tuberculin tested)."
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved to leave out paragraph (d), and to insert the following new paragraph:—
"() Subsection (1) of section three of this Act shall have effect as if there were inserted after the term 'certified,' wherever the same occurs therein, the term Grade A. (tuberculin tested)'"
The noble Earl said: This is a Scottish Amendment. In Scotland, under the Order they do not now have the milk described as "Grade A"; therefore, to put the Scottish provisions on all fours with those in this country it is proposed to make this alteration.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, lines 14 to 17, leave out paragraph (d), and insert the said new paragraph—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved, after Clause 10, to insert the following new clause—
". There shall be repealed as from the expiration of one year after the commencement of this Act so much of any local Act as deals with the sale of milk."
The noble Lord said: The House may be aware that in the Act of 1915 a clause was inserted which repealed all the various model milk clauses in something like 200 private Acts of Parliament, which had been obtained by various great local authorities. Of late years it has been customary when Private Bills were introduced to introduce what is generally known as the Sheffield Clause, which provided that as soon as the Act of 1915 came into force the clauses put into those private Acts of Parliament became null and void.
186
If that had not been done they would still have over-ridden the Act of 1915.
I understand that the noble Earl opposite takes some exception to this clause. Perhaps he would like to leave this also over to the Report stage, and to consult those of us who are interested in the matter. I think lie will agree with what was said by Lord Bledisloe when we went into Committee on this Bill, that great confusion has been created by the scrapping of the Act of 1915 and reviving a large number of clauses in private Acts of Parliament, which were never intended to have any force except as merely a temporary arrangement. As one who had a great deal to do in the past with these various model milk clauses, and introduced many of them in another place into private Acts of Parliament, I can assure the noble Earl that the matter is one of great importance, and that local authorities think that it ought to be dealt with.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 10, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Strachie.)
LORD EMMOTT: I understand that when the Act of 1914 was passed a bargain was made between the President of the Local Government Board and the Association of Municipal Corporations, many of whom are, of course, the bodies who have the special milk clauses in their local Bills—a bargain under which the Association withdrew their objection to the repeal of the local enactments, on the distinct understanding that effective provision should be made by the general Act for securing the same object, namely, the prevention of the supply of milk likely to cause tuberculosis and other diseases. This Bill, I understand, will postpone the coming into force of the Act which was to replace these local clauses, and if this Amendment were passed undoubtedly the Association of Municipal Corporations would feel that a bargain properly made had been broken. I therefore hope that the Government will not give way on this point.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: When I saw this Amendment on the Paper I had some little difficulty in understanding its exact object, because it goes considerably further than the Act of 1915. That Act was a Consolidation Act, but this Bill does not give the local authorities those powers which the Act of 1915 gave them, nor does

187
it impose upon them similar duties. To accept this Amendment would lead to great ambiguity, as it would be difficult to determine what part, if any, of existing local Acts would thereby be repealed. I am advised that there is a little difficulty in interpreting the words "so much of any local Act as deals with the sale of milk." Again, this Bill does not go nearly so far as the Act of 1915, and if this proposed repeal were carried out many provisions in local Acts would be repealed without there being anything to put in their places.
As Lord Emmott has said, this matter has been carefully considered by the Association of Municipal Corporations, and I am advised by them that the adoption of an Amendment of this nature would be met by considerable and very powerful resistance. I would further point out to the noble Lord that the suspension of the Act of 1915 is only for three years. Then, when that Act does come into force, the repeal of these local Acts will take place automatically. If we were to accept the Amendment we should proceed for one year under this Bill, plus the local Acts. Next we should proceed for two years with this Bill minus the local Acts. In 1925, when the other Bill is put into force, we should proceed under the Act of 1915, plus the local Acts. Then, when a year had elapsed, we should go on for ever with the Act of 1915 minus the local Acts. In any circumstances, therefore, this is a very complicated procedure. The proposal as suggested in the Bill is, I think, the most convenient one until 1925, when the Act of 1915 comes into force. But if the noble Lord has other alternative proposals to make we will give them the most careful consideration.
LORD BLEDISLOE: As a bargain has been mentioned by Lord Emmott—a bargain as between the Association of Municipal Corporations and the President of the Local Government Board—it is only fair for me to say, as having taken part in all these negotiations which led to the Bill of 1914, that there was a bargain also with the farmers. "We are bound," say the Ministry of Health, "to impose upon you certain restrictions in the interests of the public health, but, on the other side, we will give you uniformity of administration as regards the sale of milk." That was the bargain, so far as farmers were concerned. Unfortunately, we have not
188
got uniformity in this Bill. To some extent restrictions are imposed, at least upon producer-retailers in the supposed interests of the public health. When a bargain is spoken of it should be remembered that it was a three-sided bargain in which the farmers were concerned as well as the Association of Municipal Corporations.
LORD STRACHIE: I ask leave to withdraw this Amendment, and I will take the opportunity of consulting the noble Earl.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 agreed to.

ECCLESIASTICAL TITHE RENT CHARGES (RATES) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, the object of this Bill is to remedy an error in the drafting of the Tithe Act of 1920. I should like to remind your Lordships that in the Tithe Act of 1918 the value of tithes was reduced so that many incumbents received a lower amount of tithe; in fact, the tithe was fixed at £109 for a few years. It is very greatly to the credit of the clergy that they accepted that Act. But they fully realised that the landowner, who pays the tithe, could not continue paying the increased tithe out of his existing rents as, although corn prices were rising rapidly, the landowner got no advantage of that; it was the corn grower who got the advantage and he did not pay tithe. It was then found that the Tithe Act of 1918 inflicted some hardship on the clergy, and it was enacted by the Act of 1920 that no clergyman should pay a higher rate on his tithe than the rate which existed in 1918. That provision applied to all the clergy alike.
Then, in order to help the poorer clergy, it was further enacted that where an incumbent had a total income from his living of under £300 he was exempted from rates on tithe. When his income was under £500 he was to pay half rates on his tithe. It was afterwards found, that owing to an error in drafting and under a decision of the Law Courts, where an incumbent held united livings he could claim a separate calculation on each and, therefore, although he might have an income say of £800 a year, if the income from each of his livings was under £500 be could get an exemption in respect to half the rates on his whole income. Similarly, if he had an income of £500 a year from a

189
united living composed of two separate parts, each of them under £300, he would escape paving rates altogether, although he might be better off than, or as well off as, many of the other ratepayers in the parish.
My Bill amends the Act of 1920 only in this particular: that an incumbent with an actual income of not more than £300 and not more than £500 shall get the relief, and that the Act shall not apply to larger incomes simply because they are derived from united benefices. The effect of the Act of 1920 on some poor rural parishes has been that, owing to the relief of the clergyman from certain rates, other ratepayers in some cases have had to bear an extra 1s. or 2s. in the £ in rates, and unless this Bill is passed those other ratepayers in some places will have to pay still higher rates. The measure is supported by the National Farmers' Union. I have seen correspondence from incumbents on the question, and they also support the Bill, very greatly to their credit. I have always had great sympathy with the clergy. Your Lordships will remember, no doubt, that I fought my best for them during the passage of the Bill for the disendowment of the Church in Wales.
But I think the decision of the Law Courts can be described as a windfall. It is very difficult-, I know, to say what is in the mind of any legislator when dealing with Bills in Parliament, but I do not believe that any member of your Lordships' House or of another place meant, when the original Act was in course of consideration, that a clergyman should be able to get relief from paying his rates simply because he held two livings. This Bill has passed through all its stages in another place. It has received the support of the Ministry of Agriculture, and I hope that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord Dynevor.)
EARL GREY: My Lords, there is only one sentence in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dynevor, with which I really feel that I cannot agree. His main statement of the case and his description of the decision in the Law Courts as being in the nature of a windfall is, I think, correct. But the sentence with which I could not agree was that in which he said that the incumbent who had an income of £500 a year and could claim half exemption was
190
very likely in an unfair position, because he might be as well off as the other ratepayers. I quarrel with that statement, because you cannot compare any other ratepayer to the clergyman who is rated on his tithe. There is no other ratepayer who is rated on any similar income for local rates. I do not think on this occasion it is necessary to go into the ancient history of it.
There is only one small Amendment in the noble Lord's Bill which I should be very grateful if he would consider before the Committee stage and that is as to whether it would not be better that the Bill, if it passes into law, should not conic into operation until October 1; because the current rates are already levied on half pay. I suggest to him, as a matter ofustice, that the Bill ought not to come into operation until the date I have mentioned.
If there is, as your Lordships have heard, one unforeseen result of the Act of 1920, there is also another very unfortunate and unforeseen result of that Act. The Act says that in so far as a clergyman is relieved either from the whole or a portion of the rates on his tithe that sum shall be deemed to be irrecoverable from him. The effect of that provision is that instead of treating that remission of rates in the same way as the remission of agricultural rates was treated in the Act of 1896, the sum which the clergyman is excused from paying is left to be collected from the other ratepayers in his parish. If I read to your Lordships an extract from a particular demand note it will make quite clear what I mean. I have here a copy of a demand note served on the ratepayers of the Gosford Union in Essex. It goes through the Poor Rate and the County Rate, and it finishes with a demand for the payment of the clergyman's rates under the Ecclesiastical Tithe Rentcharge (Rates) Act, 1920, of 21s. 1d.
It is quite clear that if the people in a parish are served with a demand note asking them to pay an extra rate for their clergymen, and that that demand note is served upon Nonconformists and others, it will naturally arouse a very great sense of grievance amongst a large number of ratepayers. This particular demand note was quoted in the Widnes Free Church magazine, and there was this comment upon it:—
"Is there any reason in justice or equity why our Free Church pastors should be compelled to

191
pay rates due from the Anglican clergy? It is an outrage and ought to be resisted."
Obviously, if there is any large measure of such feeling growing up as a result of the wording of the Act of 1920 it is most unfortunate, and it is a condition of things that we ought to do our best to remove.
I have been in consultation with the central board of finance of the National Assembly, and, incidentally, I should like to say that the National Assembly unanimously passed a resolution petitioning His Majesty's Government to do what they could to remedy this grievance. I believe that it would be possible to find words which would have the effect of placing this remission of rates on the whole spending area, and not upon the individual parish with which a parson is concerned. You might say that to spread the sum remitted to the parson over the whole spending area would only widen the grievance, and would not remove it, but I think that so long as the officers of one parish are able to go to the ratepayers in that parish and say: "You must pay more because your neighbour, Mr. Brown or Mr.ones, cannot pay his share, or has been excused from paying his share," you will have a grievance. The effect of that must be far worse than would be the effect if the remission were spread over the whole rating area. It is true that such an Amendment would not remedy that grievance, and that it would not be in accordance with the preamble of the Bill, but I would appeal to Lord Dynevor's good feeling in this matter, and to noble Lords themselves to consider on Committee stage whether it would not be a worthy and a legitimate object to introduce an amendment to remedy this grievance, even if it did mean making some slight alteration in the preamble of the Bill.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: My Lords, with the best intention in the world I should find it quite impossible to resist the Bill after the speech of the noble Lord who introduced it. His arithmetic seems to me to be quite unanswerable, and I do not see how it would be possible to say anything against this Bill without stultifying ourselves in regard to the calculations given.
The truth is that from the tithe the parson receives for the discharge of his duties he ought really to be exempted altogether, if any one views the way in which the Act of Elizabeth was altered for all other inhabitants in parishes by the Act
192
of 1840. There is no occasion to elaborate that question here now, but I would point out that the clergy are being rated in a way that no other members of the community are rated, and that one would have been glad if it had been possible to seize any opportunity of rectifying that anomaly. I do not think that the Bill which is before us is an opportunity of rectifying that anomaly. It only concerns a certain number of clergy—those who happen to derive their income from two benefices, either united or held in plurality, which separately do not reach the figure of £300, or the figure of £500.
In a way it is an awkward thing—a kind of thing to which I am afraid we are very much accustomed—that the relief given to the poor clergy to compensate them for loss of tithes came in the form of relief of the rates. This year, the clergy as a body have, by the operation of the Tithe Act of 1918, collectively lost the sum of seven hundred thousand pounds. The relief that is being given to the poorest of them has not been through any alteration of the Tithe law, but, indirectly, through the alteration of the rating demands made upon them.
I do not believe that we shall ever get to the end of this long controversy until the whole matter is handled and grappled with from the many sides which are concerned in it. It is very easy for the clergy to say that the landowners are those who are in a position to help in this way and in that way, and that the clergy are the only ones who suffer from the high rating. I do not believe that to be true. I recently had a communication from a friend of mine—I do not say he belongs to the County of Norfolk—in which he points out that the tithe on his whole property, which he represents as being a very average property in the county where he lives, amounts not to a tenth but to a quarter. It is clear to me that we need to review the whole incidence of rates all over the country, and until that is done I believe that all our measures will be of a make-shift and unsatisfactory character.
But in failing to oppose this Bill I should indeed be sorry if it was thought that my sympathies did not go out to the hardworking and to the underpaid clergy. I believe it is being recognised more and more as a kind of national disgrace that our clergy should be working, as they do work, on such miserable stipends. If ever a living falls vacant in my own gift that is worth £300 a year I regard it as a princely

193
gift, and I very carefully consider a large number of men who may, after long and hard work, be rightly considered as candidates for such preferment!
I have said that I think we cannot resist this readjustment of the law. This is an occasion on which it is right for those of us who are interested in the clergy, and I am sure that means a great majority of your Lordships' House, to bend our mind to the present; situation in the hope and intention that by the year 1925, which will see an end of the existing Tithe Act, some comprehensive system of rating will be devised. It would be the greatest misfortune if the whole question of tithe was; postponed until the end of 1924. It would be much wiser to consider it now in a less contentious atmosphere than is likely to prevail when that Act comes to an end. Your Lordships will forgive me for saying so much with reference to the clergy on this Bill, but the rating of the clergy on their tithes is most unsatisfactory.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I desire to support what has been said by the Bishop of Norwich with regard to the extreme inconvenience of the continuance of an admitted wrong on the clergy, a wrong to which they have been subjected year after year with no immediate prospect of its removal. We have been obliged, during recent years, to pass little Bills—not little to those who have to suffer the grievance— with regard to the rating of tithe, and we have called attention to the fact that the whole matter urgently calls for consideration. I have been accustomed to discussions on this subject for the last forty years. I have been for nearly thirty years in this House, and every time that the matter has come up I have heard the same thing said. It has been said: "We have no doubt about the grievance, but it cannot be dealt with until the whole subject has been reconsidered."
If anyone wants to be quite sure what the facts are he should read the lucid and weighty statement in the Report of the Royal Commission of 1899, which dealt with the question of local taxation. It shows absolutely clearly that there is this genuine grievance on the part of the clergy in the fact that they alone are rated on the income which they require for doing their natural work. The rating of tithe is a genuine and admitted grievance. It has been constantly said: "We admit
194
the grievance, but you must go on for the present because we must deal with it on a large scale." The time does not come for dealing with it on a large scale, and it is very hard on the clergy that they should be told: "You must go on bearing your grievance because we are not ready to deal with the subject as a whole."
If it is impossible to deal with it as a whole then it should be dealt with in part. It can only be dealt with as a whole by the Government. The necessary legislation must be initiated in another place, and must come from the Government. The point I want to press is that the grievance of the clergy in this matter is being constantly admitted. It is only allowed to go on because it forms part of something larger, and the question of dealing with the larger subject is postponed. That is not an adequate answer, and I am thankful that the occasion of the introduction of the present Bill has been taken for calling attention afresh to a very real grievance which, I hope, will be remedied before long.
LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, I am much obliged to your Lordships for the way you have received this Bill. My noble friend, Earl Grey, has suggested two Amendments he would like to move in Committee. The first, with regard to the date, is not a very difficult matter, which I will consider; but the second is much more serious. He would like to place, the rating on the whole spending area, not on the parish. I sympathise with his object, but I think it would mean altering the title and preamble of the Bill. Before I pledge myself to accept any Amendment I should like to get some assurance from the Government that they would give every facility for the Bill in another place. I propose to put down the Committee stage for to-morrow week, Tuesday, July 11, if that is agreeable to the noble Earl.
EARL GREY: That date is quite suitable so far as I am concerned.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 84:
Application to Solway Firth.
84. In order to remove an anomaly between the English and Scottish sides of the Solway Firth, the regulations as to mesh of nets shall be the same as those in force on the Scottish side.
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER VISCOUNT ULLSWATER had an Amendment on the Paper, to leave out Clause 84 and to insert the following new clause:
.—(1) With a view to securing uniformity as to the minimum size of mesh which may be lawfully used for taking salmon in any part of the Solway Firth, it is hereby declared that where the minimum size of mesh of nets used for taking salmon prescribed by any statute or byelaw in force in any part of the Solway Firth to which this Act applies is greater than that which may be lawfully used in the part of the Solway Firth to which this Act does not apply, the byelaw shall have effect as if the minimum size of mesh so prescribed in relation to the part of the Solway Firth to which this Act applies were such as may be so lawfully used as aforesaid in the part of the Solway Firth to which this Act does not apply.
(2) The limits of the Solway Firth for the purposes of this section shall be such as may be determined by the Minister.
The noble Viscount said: This rather formidable looking clause calls for a word or two of explanation. In the Committee stage the Government accepted a proposal I made to place the two sides of the Solway on an equal footing so far as the mesh of the nets was concerned. I put my clause into four lines, but I am informed by the legal advisers of the Department that they prefer the clause as it is now extended into sixteen lines. I am not going to look a gift clause in the mouth, and I accept their proposal. I think it carries out what I intended, and what I believe your Lordships intended, in the matter. A slight alteration is necessary; it is accepted by the Department. Instead of the words "statute or" there should be inserted "provision of this Act or by any," and later in the clause, after the word "the" and before "byelaw," there should be inserted the words "provision or." With these two alterations I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 5, leave out Clause 84, and insert the following new clause:—
".—(1) With a view to securing uniformity as to the minimum size of mesh which may be lawfully used for taking salmon in any part of the Solway Firth, it is hereby declared that where the minimum size of mesh of nets used for taking salmon prescribed by any provision of this Act or by any byelaw in force in any part of the Solway Firth to which this Act applies is greater than that which may be lawfully used in the part of the Solway Firth to which this Act does not apply, the provision or byelaw shall have effect as if the minimum size of mesh so prescribed in relation to the part of the Solway Firth to which this Act applies were such as may be so lawfully used as aforesaid in the part of the Solway Firth to which this Act does not apply.
196
"(2) The limits of the Solway Firth for the purposes of this section shall be such as may be determined by the Minister."—(Viscount Ullswater.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

OUTRAGE IN IRELAND.
Loud CARSON Loud CARSON rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether their attention has been called to the outrages alleged to have been committed in the County of Tipperary on a young married lady, a British subject; whether it is true, as alleged, that a raid took place on her husband's residence, and that she was outraged during the raid on seven or eight different occasions; and whether any action has been taken by His Majesty's Government with reference to the matter; and whether the Provisional Government have instituted any inquiry into the matter.
The noble and learned Lord said: My I Lords, in asking the Government the Question standing in my name I assure your Lordships that my sole reason for putting it down is that, of all the horrible outrages that we have had from Ireland since the British troops were withdrawn from that country, this to my mind is one of the worst. I put the Question on the Paper because, so far as I can see, His Majesty's Government have never really realised the position in which they left helpless loyalists when they went away without making the slightest provision for their safety. The Treaty, which is now six months old, and all that followed from the Treaty, is past history, so far as politics are concerned, and my anxieties now are really concerned with the people who have been loyal in Ireland, and who have been totally abandoned.
I cannot but think that, even at the present time, it is the duty of the great British Government to try to do something I to alleviate the utter want of protection of these people in Ireland. I cannot imagine the feelings of those who came to the conclusion that it was best to leave Ireland, and, in doing so, to abandon all their friends and all those who had hitherto kept the flag flying; and, even now, I see no trace of anything being done, or of any lead being given to these people as to what is to be their fate in the future. You may have victory by the Free Staters, or you may have victory by the Republicans, whatever may be the difference between the two classes, but, believe me, the one

197
set of people who are absolute helpless, and all the more undeservedly helpless because they are not interfering in the quarrels of these two classes, are those who have been loyal to this country.
As to the particular case which I have brought forward, I have asked whether it is true, because it is so horrible that I, as an Irishman, feel that it is an outrage which is not of an ordinary kind, or, at least, has not hitherto been of an ordinary kind, in my country. I have here an affidavit, signed and certified by a Commissioner, of this lady and her husband, and I think the best thing I can do is to read their own words, omitting—for reasons which your Lordships will well understand—the names of the people. The husband says—
"On Friday morning, June 22, about 12.30 o'clock, men smashed windows and demanded admittance to our house. On opening the door I was forced by two men, one of whom levelled a gun at me, into a room adjoining, with an old gentleman, 74 years of ago, who lived with us, and they locked us in."
Three men then entered the bedroom of his wife and all three, she says, outraged her. The whole party ransacked the house; they took everything of value that was portable, throwing everything about.
The lady gives descriptions of what they did, and goes on to say:—
"While this was going on, I was outraged by different men in turn, one after the other, and a guard was always kept in my room. Finally, I was taken out of my own room, to allow it to be searched for valuables, a light being required for that purpose, and no light being allowed there while I was in it. I was brought by a man in a green uniform into another bedroom, where I was once more outraged by this man. I believe I was outraged altogether on eight or nine different occasions."
The husband says—
"I and the old gentleman were let out of the room, where we had been kept until about 2 o'clock, and I found my wife lying on the bed, almost lifeless, in a terrible condition impossible to describe."
They add that these are the facts according to their own personal knowledge, so far as relate to them respectively.
The facts are too eloquent to require words from me, but I do demand to know how this is to be stopped. What efforts are being made to put a stop to it? These are British subjects, living a few miles away from your own shores. What does the Government do for them? Or what does the Government advise them to do? Do they advise this class of people through-
198
out the country to leave Ireland? If they do, will they help them? Will they set up some sort of Commission which will enable them to get out? Or do they advise them to stay there? If they advise them to stay there, to whom are they to look? Has Great Britain no voice in the protection of her loyal subjects? We are entitled to know where; we stand. These people are entitled to know where they stand. This is one of many hundred letters that a man like myself receives. I do not say that; they are all as horrible as this, but they all relate to tin; perpetration of outrages which deprive people of their property under the most trying circumstances. Whether it be fruitless or not, I cannot but feel that, living as I do here in this country in, at all events, comparative security, I would be a traitor to those with whom I was brought up, and whom I love more than any people in the world, if I hesitated to bring this matter before the House.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (The Earl of Crawford): My Lords, immediately upon receiving private information about this outrage, the Government communicated with its representative in Dublin. He thereupon approached the Provisional Government to inquire into the facts of this case. I am sorry to say that our information on the subject is very incomplete, and during the last four or five days it has been almost impossible to get any further information on the matter. We hear, however, that the Provisional Government has reason to suspect a particular individual as being the ringleader of this gang of ruffians. The man in question appears to have left the neighbourhood of the outrage, and an active search is now being pursued.
I confess I wish I could give a clear and definite answer to the Question of the noble and learned Lord, as to what attitude should be adopted by the Government towards some hundreds of thousands of loyalists in the south of Ireland. The particular district where this occurred, I gather, is in the hands of people who are fighting the Provisional Government, and where the power of the Provisional Government is at its very lowest. This is a sinister as well as an atrocious affair. There can be no excuse or pretext of polities, nor can it be alleged that there was the smallest provocation for this crime. If unpunished, a collective outrage

199
of this character upon an individual involves collective discredit upon the country as a whole. If unchecked and unpunished, this foul disease will spread. A loyalist may suffer to-day; to-morrow's victim will probably be a Nationalist; and the consequences on the moral stature of a nation must be incalculable. For my own part, taking note of what Lord Carson has just said, I have always heard that this particular horror is quite alien to the records of Irish crime, and I therefore feel confident that on this particular kind of crime the Irish Government, and the Irish community as a whole, must and will do their utmost to prevent a recurrence of these foul proceedings, which shock the sentiments of every honest man, whatever be his position in life or his politics, in Ireland.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, no criticism can be offered of the terms in which the noble Earl opposite spoke of this disgusting outrage, but I confess I should have been more satisfied if he had finished his remarks by recognising, frankly and freely before your Lordships, that His Majesty's Government have a responsibility in this matter—a responsibility which they cannot be said to have discharged by merely speaking in proper terms of the outrage itself. I think that history might be searched in vain for a parallel of the proceedings of the Government in handing over Ireland to anarchy in the manner in which they have done. They took no precautions whatever to ascertain that there was a settled Government in Ireland when they abandoned the field. There was no proper provision of Courts, or of law, recognised by the Provisional Government, or of armed forces or police forces.
They withdrew all the protection of the Imperial Government, and left Ireland, to welter in the disorder and the outrage which we have seen; because of course the instance of my noble and learned friend, although a very extreme one, is not the only one. I have the report of one in my pocket at this moment, although it would not be material to read it now. The Government have abandoned Ireland, and the Government are responsible for the result. I should have been happier if they had frankly recognised the depth of the blunder which they have committed, and if they had said frankly to your Lordships, and to the country, that they recognised their responsibility and to the utmost of their
200
power will see that the Provisional Government does justice—doesustice, that is to say, in vindicating the rights and avenging the wrongs of British subjects—of loyalists who have trusted us and whom we, under the leadership of the Government, have abandoned.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: My Lords, I have consistently supported the Government in the policy which they have adopted in Ireland as a result of the Conference, and I desire now to say that it I seems to me that we have reached a period I in the history of Ireland which demands some different treatment and fresh consideration. The noble Marquess who has just spoken said, with painful truth, that I the disgusting and abominable outrage which my noble and learned friend opposite has described to your Lordships' House is by no means an incident by itself, I although we would fain hope that in its particular character it is singular. I imagine that there is no member of this House who has taken, in any degree, an active part in public affairs of late, who cannot produce abundant and unquestioned evidence of the hopeless condition which Ireland has now reached, at all events in I the south and west.
I agree with noble Lords opposite who hold that the great blunder which was made had nothing to do with the Treaty, but that it was in the removal of the natural guardians of the people, either soldiers or policemen, before there were men actually ready to enter the sentry box which they vacated. At present, from information upon which I can absolutely rely, I know that there is no law whatever in a great part of that portion of Ireland. I am told that rents are not being paid. That is an old story. But now I am told that Taxes and rates are not being paid; that bills are not being paid; that people have learnt that they can do as they please, and the law will pay no attention to them whatever. If this is not an exaggeration —I believe it is not—then I say the time has come when the Government, not only in their own interests, not only in the interests of justice and fair play, but in the interests of the new State which they have created in Ireland and which they desire to see prosperous and strong, must have a policy for the future. And the time also has come when they ought to announce that policy to the world at large.

201
There is more at stake than the liberty of individuals. When this civil war which is now raging in parts of Ireland is over— as we hope it will be very shortly in order that there may not be more unnecessary bloodshed in that country—you will have reached but the first stage of your journey, the goal of which is the restitution of good government there. We are told that the law does not exist, and that in country villages and distant parts of the country districts the people, whether loyalists or not (for from this point of view I do not care whether they are rebels), have no security; but here within a stone's throw of the centre of our Government, here in a part of the country for which we still hold and shall continue to hold direct responsibility, it is awful to think that men and women are exposed to these crimes and that at present we do not know how they are to be ended.
My noble and learned friend concluded his speech with a direct question, and I regret that it was not possible for my noble friend who is leading the House to answer it now. I have risen to use what small influence I possess with His Majesty's Government, to implore them to consider the question of my noble and learned friend, and to do their utmost to give us a definite reply before long. His question was this: What is the advice that the Government of the day give to the loyalists in the South and West of Ireland? Do you advise them to stay there, and, if so, what guarantee, can you give them that they will not be exposed to these horrors and these terrible and disgraceful outrages? If, on the other hand, you advise them to go away, then what assistance are you prepared to give them when they go?
The Government are laying a very heavy burden of responsibility upon their supporters. In this question of giving assistance to those who are driven out of the country the record of the Government, so far as I am able to examine it and test it, is not a good one. They are at present risking the loyalty of thousands of the best men who ever served the Sovereign in Ireland, in the persons of the Royal Irish Constabulary. I have constant communications from them, saying that the assistance which they are given when they are driven out of Ireland is barely sufficient —in some cases altogether insufficient— to enable them to make a new start.
202
I hope that the Government are reconsidering this question; your Lordships, I believe, will have it before you to-morrow. But the precedent is not a good one. The Government's reputation is at stake. In my humble opinion, their honour is at stake. It is their bounden duty to consider this question without delay, and to be able to tell the loyalists who are constantly appealing to us what the advice is that the Government give. They cannot bring them over here. What home can they offer to them if they come? Our pavements are worn out by the feet of men seeking employment which they cannot get. It is no good adding to this crowd of hungry and expectant folk. The only chance is that they should remain in Ireland and be ready when government is restored—if by God's mercy it is restored— to take their part in the responsibility of governing their country. But if that is the advice given it is the bounden duty of those who give it to offer these people also an assurance that their liberties, their properties, aye their lives and, as we now know, the sanctity of their wives, shall be secured, if not by one Government, then by the Government of the United Kingdom.
I have taken part in this debate with profound regret. I intervened only because I feel that the duty which I have ventured —I am afraid inadequately—to indicate as being the duty of His Majesty's Government is none the less the duty of every single individual who has the means and opportunity of raising his voice in defence of those who are suffering beyond anything, I believe, that your Lordships can conceive to-day.

GUARDIANSHIP, ETC., OF INFANTS BILL, [H.L.]
LORD ASKWITH: My Lords, I beg to make the Motion, of which I have given Notice, for the appointment of a joint Committee to consider this Bill.
Moved, That a Committee of Five Lords be appointed to join with a Committee of the House of Commons to consider the said Bill; that the Lords following be named of the Committee—

D. Northumberland.

E. Onslow.

L. Wemyss (E. Wemyss).

L. Terrington.

L. Askwith.

203
That such Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the House of Commons in the appointment of a Chairman.—(Lord Askwith.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Message sent to the House of Commons acquainting them of the appointment of
204
five Lords to serve on this Committee, and requesting them to appoint five Members of that House to be joined to the said Committee.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes to seven o'clock.

HAMPSHIRE RIVERS FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

DUMFRIES AND MAXWELLTOWN WATER WORKS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
INFANTICIDE BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
PILOTAGE PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
STAFFORDSHIRE POTTERIES WATER BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (GUILDFORD EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
FRAUD AND FALSIFICATION BILL. [H.L.]
Committee of the Whole House (on recommitment) (which stands appointed for Thursday next) put off to Tuesday, July 11.