Sitting of 8 May 1928

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Caerphilly Urban District Council Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.
Regent's Canal and Dock Company (Grand Junction Canal Purchase) Bill,
Regent's Canal and Dock Company (Warwick Canals Purchase) Bill,
Rickmansworth and Uxbridge Valley Water Bill,
Zoological Society of London Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
London County Council (Money) Bill,
Read a Second time, and committed.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  SOUTH SUBURBAN GAS (CONSOLIDATION) BILL,
  Resolution of the House of the 25th day of April relative to the South Suburban Gas (Consolidation) Bill, which was ordered to be communicated to the Lords, and Message from the Lords of the 2nd day of May, signifying their concurrence in the said Resolution read.
  Order [23rd February] relating to the committal of the South Suburban Gas (Consolidation) Bill read and discharged, and Bill committed to the Joint Committee appointed for the consideration of the Dover Gas Bill [Lords].
  Ordered,
  "That all Petitions in favour of or against the Bill, presented three clear days before the meeting of the Committee, be referred to the Committee. That the Petitioners praying to be heard against the Bill, by themselves, their Counsel, Agents, or witnesses be heard, and Counsel be heard in support of the Bill."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

  PRIVATE BILL (Lords).—(Standing Orders not previously inquired into and complied with.)
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of
  148
  Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely,
  South Essex Waterworks Bill [Lords].
  Bill to be read a Second time.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  MERCANTILE MARINE.

    NATIONAL UNION OF SEAMEN.
    Mr. STEPHENasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that in certain cases sailors are only allowed to sign on on their ships on giving an I.O.U. authorising the shipowners to pay a sum of money to the National Union of Seamen; and whether he will take steps to prevent this practice?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I understand that many shipowners have agreed to employ as seamen in their vessels only members of the National Union of Seamen, and that an arrangement is in force by which seamen desiring employment who are not members of the union, or whose subscriptions are in arrear, can get the privileges of membership on signing an authorisation for the union entrance fee, or arrears of subscription, to be deducted from their wages at the end of the voyage. The matter is not one which calls for intervention by the Board of Trade.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Seeing that the Government have taken steps to protect workmen against trade unions which they wish to join, would the Government not take steps also to prevent men being compelled to join unions which they do not wish to join?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir. Even accepting that as a statement of the case, I think it is wise for the Board of Trade in this Administration to follow the lines adopted by the Board of Trade in the Socialist Administration.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Is the Minister aware that men who have been unemployed for a long time are sometimes compelled to pay as much as £2 or £2 10s. before they are allowed to obtain employment, and will the right hon. Gentleman not do something to protect these men?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have no power to intervene between a trade union organisation and its members.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Is it not a fact that the amounts deducted from the men are returned in the account of wages, and that the account of wages is a Board of Trade document; and does not that fact give the Board of Trade power to intervene?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No doubt the hon. Member, when a member of the Socialist Government, made all these representations to his colleagues in that Government.
    Sir ROBERT THOMAS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 95 per cent. of all British sailors and firemen are voluntarily members of the Sailors' and Firemen's Union and that it is the only union in this country that has not had a strike during the last quarter of a century?
    Mr. SHINWELL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the question addressed to him does not relate to the proposed intervention of his Government; and will he reply to my question, as to whether his Department is not bound to intervene where the account of wages, an official Government document, is used for purposes other than that for which it is intended?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir. I am quite satisfied that the Board of Trade is not bound to intervene. If the hon. Member's argument is correct, it would have been as correct when addressed to his colleagues in the Socialist Government as it is addressed to the present Government.
    Mr. STEPHEN: I give notice that I shall raise this question on the Adjournment.

    PILOTAGE RATES.
    Sir R. THOMASasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that shipowners regard pilotage charges,
    150
    particularly on the west coast of England and Wales, as being unreasonably high, especially in the case of coasting steamers; and whether he will institute a general inquiry into the pilotage rates of all the ports of the United Kingdom?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am aware that shipowners hold the view mentioned as regards pilotage charges in some of our ports, but, under the Pilotage Act of 1913, they can obtain full consideration of any representations they desire to advance. As I informed the hon. Member on 24th April, I do not think that a general inquiry into these charges would be useful.
    Sir R. THOMAS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Bristol Channel pilotage rates from Barry Roads are 94.7 per cent. higher than the charges of pre-War days?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I cannot answer off-hand questions of detail relating to comparative charges with anything like accuracy; but the very fact that he cites one example seems to show that the argument used by me on previous occasions is right, and that these matters are much more conveniently dealt with, as provided by Statute, by going into the individual cases where necessary rather than by general inquiry.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all the rates in the West of England are fixed by the pilotage authorities on which the shipowners are well represented; and is he aware that in the case cited by the hon. Member for Anglesey (Sir R. Thomas) the pilots have to keep their vessels going at much greater cost than before the War and that the rates are well justified?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: All this seems to show how sound is the answer that each case should be investigated and decided; on its own merits.
    Sir R. THOMAS: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that a general inquiry is necessary, having regard to the great anomalies that exist—for instance a deeply-laden ship being charged the same rates as a lightly-laden ship?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think the fact that hon. Members who take different views can produce such a

    151
    variety of instances based on differing circumstances shows how wise it is to deal with the individual cases, and not to attempt to deal with the matter in a general way.

  BUDGET.

    RATING RELIEF.
    Mr. LAWSONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can give an approximate estimate of the amount per ton relief that will come to coal and steel as the result of the relief to productive concerns in respect of rates and freights?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Relief from three-quarters of the local rates would, for the year 1927, have been equivalent to about 2½d. a ton on the saleable coal raised. The proposed freight rate reduction would amount to about 4d. a ton on all coal carried by railways. Three-quarters of the local rates on collieries, coke ovens, iron ore and limestone mines, furnaces and rolling mills are equivalent to about 3s. a ton on finished steel, and the proposed freight rate reductions on coal, coke, ore and limestone are equivalent to about 1s. a ton on finished steel.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Since the suggested relief to collieries only approximates to 6½d. per ton, when the actual loss is about 1s. a ton, what advantage are the miners going to get out of this rating relief?
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTEasked the Minister of Health whether he has any information as to the amount of rates paid annually by hospitals which are supported by voluntary contributions; and whether he will consider the possibility of relieving them of this burden when he brings in his proposals for the relief of rates in industries?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): No complete statement of the amount of rates paid in respect of voluntary hospitals is available. In my right hon. Friend's opinion any proposal to de-rate voluntary hospitals must be considered in the light of past inquiries into that proposal and in relation to similar claims made on behalf of other
    152
    charitable and public institutions. It is not germane to the Government's proposals for giving relief from rating burdens to agriculture and industry.
    Mr. KELLYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate has been made as to the relief in rates by which he expects to relieve the engineering trade in October, 1929, under the Budget proposals?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have been asked to reply. No comprehensive information is available, but on the basis of the available data it is roughly estimated that the direct relief to the engineering industry in respect of local taxation will be from £2 millions to £2½millions a year.
    Mr. KELLY: May we be given the line that has been drawn indicating what is the engineering trade for the purposes of this relief?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I assume that the hon. Gentleman in putting down his question took the line given in the Census of Production, and that is the line which I took.
    Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Does that line include marine engineering?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I rather think that marine engineering is under a separate heading, but I would like notice of that question.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Are we to take it that marine engineering is not to get any relief from the rates?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Certainly not. The question is whether marine engineering is included in general engineering, or included, as I think it is, in shipbuilding.
    Mr. JAMES HUDSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether under the proposals of the Budget for the partial de-rating of productive industries, breweries and distilleries will be classed as productive enterprises?
    Sir K. WOOD: I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given yesterday to the hon. and gallant Member for Croydon North (Colonel Mason).
    Mr. THURTLE: Are not these industries in exactly the same position as factories which manufacture ginger-beer and lemonade?
    Mr. J. HUDSON: On what grounds has it been decided to effect these de-rating proposals when, since the War, between £100,000,000 and £200,000,000 profit has been made by them? In what sense do they need de-rating?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can debate that later.

    IMPORTED OILS.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is proposed to charge a duty on the turpentine, white spirit, and other oils contained in paints, colours and varnishes imported into this country; and, if so, at what rate?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Under the provisions of Section 7 (1) of the Finance Act, 1901, duty will be chargeable in respect of imported paints, varnishes, colours, etc., which contain dutiable hydrocarbon oils, at the rate of 4d. per gallon on the quantity of such oils used in their manufacture.

    MECHANICAL LIGHTERS.
    Captain GARRO-JONESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he now contemplates reducing the Excise duty on mechanical lighters from sixpence to threepence?
    Mr. SAMUEL: It was understood that there would be a further opportunity of discussing this matter during the Debates on the Finance Bill.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Has the hon. Gentleman taken the opportunity in the meantime to consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this matter?

  BRITISH ARMY.

    SERVICE PENSIONS.
    Mr. MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for War if there is any Regulation which states that a man who has not less than 14 years' qualifying service
    154
    and is in receipt of a disability pension of not less than 20 per cent. shall be entitled to a service pension?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): The Regulation to which the hon. Member refers is contained in Army Order 330 of 1918. It provides that a soldier who served in the Army during the Great War and left with between 14 and 21 years' total service, of which at least 14 years reckoned as qualifying service, may be given a service pension provided that he was disabled in the Great War and granted a disability pension by the Ministry of Pensions. If the soldier's total service is less than 18 years, the disability pension must be a permanent one.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Can the hon. Gentleman send me a copy of the Regulation?
    Mr. COOPER: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in the event of any man being recalled to the colours during a time of national emergency, the time served in the Reserve counts as a qualifying service or, if he volunteers for service in such an event when Sections A, B and D have been recalled, does such service count as qualifying towards pension?
    Mr. COOPER: No, Sir, not if he enlisted after 12th September, 1919, and is therefore governed by the current Regulations.
    Mr. MACLEAN: In the case of any reserve soldier who joined in 1914, does this particular regulation not govern his period of service and any disability which he suffered during the late War?
    Mr. COOPER: If he joined at the earlier date, his case would be governed by the earlier Regulation.
    Mr. MACLEAN: What is the earlier date? Is it 1914?
    Mr. COOPER: Prior to September, 1919.

    11TH HUSSARS (BAND UNIFORMS).
    Mr. RAMSDENasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what is the number of men serving in the band of the 11th Hussars; how frequently new uniforms are issued to them; what length of

    155
    cloth is required to make these uniforms, and how many years will be taken to use up for this purpose the uniform cloth in stock which was formerly worn by this regiment?
    Mr. COOPER: The authorised establishment of the band is 27, but uniform is also provided for supplementary players, including boys under training, not in-chided in the establishment. New uniforms are not issued at fixed periods but are supplied as and when required. There are approximately 2⅙ yards in these uniforms, of which more than a yard is required for the trousers made of the material peculiar to this regiment.
    Mr. RAMSDEN: How long does the hon. Gentleman estimate it will take to use up the cloth which they have in stock? That is asked in the Question, but there is no reply to it.
    Mr. COOPER: As already stated new uniforms are issued when required and not at fixed intervals. It is therefore impossible to calculate the exact period for which the present supply of cloth will last, but, roughly speaking, it should last for a considerable period—some 50 or 60 years, or even longer.
    Mr. LUMLEY: Is my hon. Friend aware that the wearing of crimson pants has been a tradition of this regiment for many years and will he make sure of preserving the tradition by preserving the crimson cloth?
    Mr. RAMSDEN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that long before 50 or 60 years this cloth will be of no value whatever?

  SCOTLAND.

    FLOODING (RIVER SPEY).
    Mr. JOHNSTONasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the damage done to crops and property in the neighbourhood of Garmouth, Morayshire, owing to the repeated flooding of the River Spey, due to the sweeping away of a bulwark on a neighbouring estate; whether he is aware that no compensation is payable to the farmers and others for their losses; and what steps he proposes to take, by legislation or otherwise, to remedy this state of affairs?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): I am aware that considerable damage is caused to agricultural land by the periodical flooding of the River Spey, and my attention has already been drawn by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. J. Stuart) to the damage in this instance. I am not aware that there is any statutory provision for the payment of compensation in such cases. Regarding the latter part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 1st instant on the subject of the flooding of the River Kelvin. The whole problem is under consideration.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that floods have taken place on this land on 15 different occasions since September, 1927; that the land is going out of cultivation; that the railway embankment is being undermined, and that a village has been cut off; and cannot he, as the representative of the Government, take steps to deal with the situation?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I am getting the Board of Agriculture to report on the whole circumstances of the case. I can do no more at present.

    SMALL HOLDINGS.
    Mr. MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he has taken to provide George Ross, of North Cluanie, Glenshill, and his brother with small holdings; whether he is aware that George Ross served in the Army from August, 1914, to 1919, and that he and his brother applied to the Scottish Board of Agriculture while in the Army in France and whether he is aware that they have since applied to the Board of Agriculture, and that they are at present unemployed and without land?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: An application by these men on the grounds stated in the question is at present before the Board, and inquiries are proceeding relative to the possibility of providing holdings at North Cluanie.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not the case that these individuals sent in their applications while they were serving in the Army in France; and does it take the right hon. Gentleman a matter of 10 years to find suitable land in this part of Scotland to give these two men small holdings?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I made application some time ago to the Board of Agriculture asking them to give special consideration to the case of these two men who are very deserving applicants; and will the right hon. Gentleman see to it that, in the consideration of the whole question, their cases are not overlooked?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I am aware that the right hon. Gentleman drew the attention of the Board to the circumstances of these cases. All I can say at present is that the Board is investigating the circumstances in the hope of finding some solution.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to my Supplementary Question Does it take the Board of Agriculture 10 years to find, in this part of Scotland, suitable ground for small holdings for two ex-service men? Could not this matter have been dealt with long ago? The right hon. Gentleman has been Secretary of State for Scotland for several years, and the matter has not come to an end yet.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    BY-PRODUCTS.
    Sir R. THOMASasked the Secretary for Mines, if he will give a list of the collieries in South Wales and Monmouthshire which have installations for the treatment of coal for by-products; and the figures for the output of the more important by-products during the last five years?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Commodore Douglas King): The only information I have relates to coke-ovens. I will send the hon. Member a list of the colliery companies to which these works are attached, but I regret that I am unable to state the amount of the byproducts recovered.

    MEIROS COLLIERY.
    Mr. MARDY JONESasked the Secretary for Mines, whether he is aware that pumping operations were discontinued at the South Rhondda Colliery early last February, causing a great accumulation of water in the workings of this colliery in seams to the rise of the same seams which were being worked
    158
    at the adjacent Meiros Collieries at Llanharran, Glamorgan; and why the Mines Department permitted this situation to arise, which has resulted in the throwing out of work of about 200 miners, whose lives were endangered at the Meiros Collieries by the risk of an inundation of water from the abandoned mine at South Rhondda Colliery?
    Commodore KING: On 11th April, there was a small make of water in the Pentre Seam of the Meiros Colliery and the manager withdrew the workmen from the Six Feet Seam pending examination. Work has not been re-started in that seam, but in the opinion of the Divisional Inspector of Mines the position is devoid of danger.
    Mr. JONES: Is it not a fact that the South Rhondda and the Meiros Collieries which adjoin, are owned by the same parent company, Messrs. Guest, Keen and Nettlefold; and are they not responsible for providing for the safety of the whole undertaking? Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that 200 miners have been thrown out of work because of this carelessness?
    Commodore KING: No, Sir, I am not. As I have just informed the hon. Member, the opinion of the divisional inspector is that the position is devoid of danger.
    Mr. JONES: If that is so, why have these 200 men been withdrawn? Was it not specifically because of the danger of an inundation of water from this abandoned mine. Ought not the hon. and gallant Gentleman to make special inquiries into this carelessness of his Department?
    Commodore KING: No, Sir. I presume that the reason they are not working the seam is because the seam is not economic.
    Mr. JONES: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman prepared to give his authority for the statement that the seam is not economic; and is he not aware of the fact that this is the most valuable seam in South Wales, and that to my personal knowledge the company is making handsome profits this year out of this very seam of coal?
    Mr. KELLY: Arising out of his reply, may I ask the hon. and gallant Gentle-

    159
    man if this is one of the mines dealt with in the catalogue of abandoned mines?
    Commodore KING: No, Sir. It is not abandoned.
    Mr. JONES: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall raise this question on the Adjournment.

    DURHAM COALFIELD.
    Mr. BATEYasked the Secretary for Mines the number of pits working, the number of men employed, and the weekly wages paid in the Durham coalfield in October, 1924, and April, 1928, respectively?
    Commodore KING: In October, 1924, 226 pits were at work, employing 158,700 wage-earners. The corresponding figures for April, 1928, were 217 and 126,200. The estimated wekly wage hill in October, 1924, was £378,000, and in March, 1928, the latest month for which information is available, £248,000.
    Mr. BATEY: In view of the large number of men who have been thrown out of work since this Government came into office, do not the Government propose to take any steps to help these men now instead of in 18 months' time?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for debate.

    LOCAL RATES AND ROYALTIES, SCOTLAND.
    Mr. W. M. WATSONasked the Secretary for Mines the total amount paid as local rates and the amount paid to royalty owners in each mining county in Scotland by coal companies; and the rates, or amount per ton, on output during the latest available six months?
    Commodore KING: Information is only available for Scotland as a whole. The estimated amount of local rates payable in respect of the six months ended March, 1928, was £108,000, or 1.46d. per ton of saleable output, and of royalties, £453,000, or 6.13d. per ton.
    Mr. MARDY JONES: Why is it impossible for the hon. and gallant Member's Department to give the specific amounts for each local authority's area in all the Scottish coalfields, instead of merely a lump sum for the entire country?
    Commodore KING: Because we have not the information, which is not supplied to us.
    Mr. JONES: Is it not a simple thing for each local authority in every coalfield in Scotland to give the specific information for its own area?

    PRODUCTION AND PRICES (CANNOCK CHASE COLLIERIES).
    Mr. W. M. ADAMSONasked the Secretary for Mines whether he can state the terms of the Cannock Chase Collieries Commercial Association's decision to fix a quota of coal production; whether it is intended to increase the price of coal for industrial and domestic purposes; and to what extent the proposal will limit employment in the pits?
    Commodore KING: I understand that the quotas under the Midland scheme are fixed by a committee of the Central Association and not by the District Association. As regards the answer to the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on the 3rd May to the hon. Member for Plaistow (Mr. W. Thorne). More experience of the scheme is necessary before its effect on employment can be judged.
    Mr. ADAMSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is indicated already that the number of shifts will be reduced 12 per month?
    Commodore KING: No, Sir, I am not aware of that.

    YORKSHIRE.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary for Mines how many collieries were working full time in Yorkshire during the week ending 28th April; and how many collieries were working three days a week or less?
    Commodore KING: During the week ended 28th April, 1928, 62 pits worked full time, 132 pits for four or five days, 132 pits for three days, and nine pits for less than three days.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that the short time is absolutely attributable to the Five Counties' Scheme, and can he say what the Government intend to do to help those men who are suffering from underemployment and from low wages?
    Commodore KING: No, Sir, the unemployment is due to lack of demand for the commodity.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that there has been a large demand for Yorkshire coal at the Humber ports which could not be supplied, although the pits were only working three or four days a week?
    Commodore KING: I understand there was a temporary shortage in Hull, but I believe that is being dealt with.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that there is still a great shortage in Hull?
    Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: Is not the Five Counties' Scheme, with its raising of coal prices, in direct accord with the recommendations of Sir Herbert Samuel's Commission?

    MINERS (NEW ENTRANTS).
    Mr. SHINWELLasked the Secretary for Mines how many boys between the ages of 14 and 16 have entered the mining industry in the first three months of this year, and the number of new entrants other than boys for the same period?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): I have been asked to reply. The available statistics include only persons insured under the Unemployment Insurance Acts and accordingly do not relate to boys below 16 years of age. During the three months to 31st March last, 7,506 boys, aged 16 and 17, in the coal mining industry entered insurance as well as 95 girls of those ages, 511 men and 34 women. Most of the boys and girls were, no doubt, already in the industry when they reached 16 years of age and became insurable, but separate statistics of these cases are not available.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Does not that prove that the voluntary arrangement between the owners and the Miners' Federation in respect of the recruitment of new labour for the mining industry has completely failed?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I should draw precisely the opposite conclusion.

    RESEARCH.
    Mr. HARDIEasked the Secretary for Mines (1) the quantity or the equivalent of coal required to produce the hydrogen for hydrogenation, gas for heating, and power for compression, etc., in working the Bergius plant;
    (2) what has been the experience of the Research Department with regard to the identity of all neutral oils from bituminous coal?
    Commodore KING: With regard to these questions, replies on such highly technical subjects would need so much qualification that it is not possible to keep them to a reasonable length. If the hon. Member will communicate to me more exact details of his requirements, I will provide him with a statement.
    Mr. HARDIE: How is the House to be informed of that which it is supposed to deal with if we get answers like this? The two questions I have put down are the most simple questions that could be put to the Mines Department. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am not talking about those who are cackling now. I want to know—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"]—I want your ruling, Mr. Speaker, on this point. After having put down two questions, I am requested, as there seems to be so great a wealth of detail in them, to submit to some sort of underhand, behind-the-Speaker's-Chair method, because they do not want these things made public. It is these underhand efforts—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"]
    Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot allow questions to be put in that form.
    At the end of Questions—
    Mr. HARDIE: On a point of Order. I desire to get this information through a question on the Order Paper, and I want to know whether, if I put these questions down in different words, they will be again ruled out of order?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot rule in advance on something I have not seen. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt take into account what the Secretary for Mines said to-day, and perhaps between them they will be able to arrive at a form of question which will enable the technical and scientific information to be given for the benefit of the whole House.
    Mr. HARDIE: Is it not in order to put "et cetera" when we get the impression from the answers given that there is something that we cannot get to know, and we use "et cetera" in order to get at the truth?
    Mr. HOPKINSON: May I submit that the information required cannot be, in the nature of the case, within the cognisance of the Secretary for Mines or any other Minister in this House; and that such information as is available has already been published in the public Press and in the proceedings of the various scientific societies, and that all those who are really interested in this matter are perfectly well aware that the information which has already been published is as much as we can expect to get in the present state of our knowledge?
    Mr. SHINWELL: Can we not arrange for the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) to sit on the Treasury Bench to answer these questions?

  TRANSPORT.

    OMNIBUS FARES.
    Mr. DAYasked the Minister of Transport whether he has received any reply to the invitation he made to the omnibus proprietors in the London area asking them for their observations with reference to the recent increases in omnibus fares; and whether he will inform the House what further action he proposes to take?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): No, Sir. I am still awaiting replies.
    Captain GARRO-JONESasked the Minister of Transport whether steps are being taken to watch and record the increases of fares imposed by the London General Omnibus Company, in view of the fact that the cost of petrol to-day, including the tax, is lower than when the standard fares were fixed?
    Colonel ASHLEY: The London Traffic Act, 1924, provides that any person to whom a licence has been granted for an omnibus to ply for hire in the City of London and the Metropolitan Police area, subject to the condition of maintaining a regular service, shall deposit with the licensing authority a schedule of the
    164
    fares which he intends to charge. Copies of such schedules are sent to me and recorded in my Department. I am not sure that I understand the hon. and gallant Member's reference to the fixing of standard fares.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the statement made by the officials of the London General Omnibus Company to the effect that they have lost some hundreds of thousands of pounds by the imposition of the tax of 4d., and has he compared that with the figure of the amount they have saved by the decrease in the cost of petrol since they fixed the present fares?
    Colonel ASHLEY: No, Sir, I have not seen that statement.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman take some steps to inform himself upon these vital matters?
    Colonel ASHLEY: If the hon. and gallant Member will kindly send me the statement, I will certainly go into it.
    Mr. COVEasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the United Counties Omnibus Company, operating in the Wellingborough Parliamentary area, has increased its workmen's fare by 50 per cent., and that as a consequence workmen have to pay a day's wage per week in omnibus fares; and what steps he proposes to take in order to prevent this increase?
    Colonel ASHLEY: The company to which the hon. Member refers is not a statutory company, and I have no control over the fares charged by them.
    Mr. COVE: Will the Minister make representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pointing out to him that the workmen are paying for the Petrol Duty?

    ESCALATORS, LEICESTER SQUARE STATION.
    Sir R. THOMASasked the Minister of Transport when the Underground companies propose to instal escalators at Leicester Square Station?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I am informed by the railway company that they realise that, in view of the continued growth of the traffic at Leicester Square Station, this station must, in order to avoid congestion, be reconstructed at an early date, and that schemes with this object are under consideration.

    BOOTHFERRY BRIDGE ROAD.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Minister of Transport whether, seeing that in the agreement between himself and the county council in October, 1924, it was agreed to bear the whole cost of the section of the Liverpool-Hull trunk road between Selby and Hull, including the road connecting with the new bridge to be built at Boothferry, and that his engineers and the trunk road engineers sketched out the route for this section of the road instead of the county surveyor, he can state when the road leading from the Boothferry bridge to link up with the new road to Hull will be commenced; whether he has now received the report of his chief road engineer, who recently examined the existing state of affairs and, if so, what is its nature; and if he is aware that the first span of the new bridge at Boothferry has been placed in position and that there is no time to he lost before commencing the necessary road leading from this bridge?
    Colonel ASHLEY: The understanding between the county council and my Department was that a certain allocation should be made from the Road Fund towards the improvement of the Hull-Selby road. That allocation is being duly spent, and will not cover the cost of the Boothferry Bridge approach, only a small part of which can be said to lie on the Hull-Selby road. It is true that my staff have taken part in the preparation of plans for the bridge approach, but assistance of this nature which is not infrequently given to local authorities, does not, in any way, imply that the execution of the work will be undertaken by my Department. I am aware of the progress of the bridge construction, towards which I have made a 50 per cent. grant, and I am desirous of assisting the local authorities in the formation of the approach on the terms usually applicable to such schemes.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, but may I ask him what steps the Corporation of Hull are to take in this matter, as until the county council and the right hon. Gentleman's Department come to some agreement the whole work on the road is held up and traffic is disorganised?
    Colonel ASHLEY: If the local authorities will approach me, I shall be pleased to hear what they have to say.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does that apply to the Corporation of Hull?
    Colonel ASHLEY: Certainly.

  ELECTRICITY CHARGES (BOURNEMOUTH AND POOLE).
  Mr. A. V. ALEXANDERasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the issue of bonus shares, equal to 100 per cent. of the ordinary share capital, by the Bournemouth and Poole Electric Light and Power Company; what was the price of electricity per unit charged by this company during each of the four quarters of 1927; and whether he is satisfied that the price so charged was reasonable having regard to the high profits secured?
  Colonel ASHLEY: I have seen reports in the Press to the effect stated in the first part of this question. As regards the second part, I understand that the prices charged by the company in question during 1927 were 7d. to 3d. per unit for lighting, 3d. to 1¾d. for power, and 2d. to 1¾d. for heating and cooking. As regards the third part, I am not in a position to express any opinion on the reasonableness of the prices charged. If the local authority or consumers consider that the existing maximum prices are unreasonable it is open to them to apply to me, in accordance with the prescribed procedure, to revise those prices.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: Does not the Minister of Transport regard it as his duty to prevent what is obviously a ramp against the consumer both from the point of view—
  Mr. SPEAKER: I should like to see that question on the Paper.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Is not this bonus distribution an accumulation of profits that have been made during past years; and is it not also a fact that the company has only three or four years more of tenure before it becomes purchasable—
  HON. MEMBERS: Speech!
  Mr. ALEXANDER: In view of the very high prices charged and the high profits shown, is not the Minister of Transport prepared to hold a local inquiry?
  Colonel ASHLEY: As I said in the last part of my answer, if the local authority or the consumers consider the existing maximum prices unreasonable, they can apply to me and ask me to revise those prices, and when they do so I shall make it my duty to go into the whole question.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question to-morrow evening on the Adjournment.

  POST OFFICE.

    TRANSATLANTIC TELEPHONE CHARGES.
    Mr. DAYasked the Postmaster-General whether there are any negotiations at present pending for the purpose of reducing the transatlantic telephone charges between Canada and Great Britain; and can he make a statement thereon?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the second does not therefore arise.
    Mr. DAY: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that ten guineas for three minutes is an inducement to the public to use this service?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The Transatlantic charge is precisely the same as in the case of Canada, £9 for three minutes.
    Mr. DAY: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that £9 for three minutes is an inducement to the public to use the service?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Yes, I do, otherwise I should not be charging it.

    CONTRACT (STAMPS).
    Captain GARRO-JONESasked the Postmaster-General by whom postage stamps, bill stamps, and other such documents are printed and on what terms; when the last contract was allotted; and how many firms tendered?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The bulk of postage stamps, entertainments duty stamps, and insurance stamps are printed by Messrs. Waterlow and Sons, under a contract running for ten years from the 1st January, 1924. High value postage stamps (2s. 6d. and upwards) are printed by Messrs. Bradbury, Wilkinson and Company under a contract originally concluded for three years from the 1st August, 1918, and now running from year to year. Four tenders were received for the former, and six for the latter contract. Sixpenny postage stamps, Inland Revenue stamps and a few insurance stamps are printed at Somerset House by the Inland Revenue Stamping Department.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the disclosures which have come to light in the case of "Waterlow and another," and learn any lesson which is to be learned from those facts?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think that is a reference to a legal case now before the Courts.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: May I submit that the legal case has a direct reference to my question on the Paper? In that case it came to light that certain firms conspired not to tender—
    Mr. SPEAKER: I am under the impression that there is a case on this point before the Courts which has not yet concluded.
    HON. MEMBERS: It has concluded.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I did not know that.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: May I therefore, ask the Postmaster-General whether he will examine the facts which have come to light in that case of "Waterlow and another," and see whether he cannot do anything to ensure that such malpractices will not occur again if he can help it?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I have already told the hon. and gallant Gentleman—of course, I am not accepting any statement of alleged facts; obviously, it would not be proper to do so—that this particular contract was concluded for the first time in 1924 and has a currency of 10 years. I do not know, because I have not examined it, whether when the con-

    169
    tract was entered into provision was made for its determination at an earlier date, but, as the hon. Member has asked me, I will look into it.
    Major PRICE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the terms of the contract are being carried out?

    MAIL TRAIN, PERTH AND ABERDEEN.
    Mr. BARCLAY-HARVEYasked the Postmaster-General on how many occasions from 1st July, 1927, to 30th April, 1928, the 8.30 mail train from Euston was more than 15 minutes late at Perth and Aberdeen, respectively; and on how many occasions it missed the connecting trains at Aberdeen in consequence?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: During the period in question the lateness of the train at Perth and Aberdeen on week-days exceeded 15 minutes on 85 and 80 occasions respectively: the mails failed to connect at Aberdeen with the Keith-Elgin and Deeside trains on 60 occasions and with the Buchan train on 33 occasions.

  NAVAL ESTABLISHMENT, PORT EDGAR.
  Mr. SHINWELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is intended to dispose of the site and buildings at Port Edgar; and whether any offers have been received by the Admiralty?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): Inquiry is being made whether the site and buildings at Port Edgar, except the oil fuel establishment which is not to be closed, down, are required for any other Government purpose. Meanwhile no action is being taken to dispose of them. No offers to purchase have been received by the Admiralty.
  Mr. SHINWELL: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether the Admiralty will be in a position to decide shortly as to whether this site has to be disposed of?
  Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: My answer, really, is a reply to the supplementary question.

  BRITISH HOLIDAY RESORTS (ADVERTISING).
  Sir CHARLES CAYZERasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what assistance is now given by the British Government in the direction of establishing a system of advertising its holiday resorts on a national and organised basis; and whether, if no such policy is adopted, he will consider the creation of a section of his Department intended to develop tourist traffic in the United Kingdom?
  Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): My Department has for some time past taken a keen interest in this question and has been in close consultation with the parties concerned. I am not, however, convinced, even apart from the question of expense, that it is desirable for the Government to make itself directly responsible for the task of advertising abroad the holiday resorts of Great Britain. This would appear to be a matter rather for private enterprise with as much assistance as this Department and its overseas officers can properly afford.

  DEAD SEA SALTS (CONCESSION).
  Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the British group of financiers who, in February of this year, applied for the concession of the Dead Sea, salts were prepared to take into the scheme any of the other applicants for the concession; and whether their offer was such as to ensure that the maximum benefits were to be given to Palestine and Transjordania by devoting to them the surplus profits arising from the concession?
  Captain MARGESSON (Lord of the Treasury): As my right hon. Friend stated yesterday in reply to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet), he was approached in February last by a firm of chartered accountants acting on behalf of a British group desiring to interest itself in the exploitation of the Dead Sea salts. In their letter to him the firm intimated that the group was prepared to take into its scheme any other applicants for the concession. They also described the group's offer in the terms of the last part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question.
  Colonel HOWARDBURY: Will my hon. Friend ask the Secretary of State whether he is aware that this prolonged delay is playing into the hands of the German monopoly, and cannot he soon come to a decision on the matter, as there are applicants who are already waiting to work this?
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: You want them to clear out of Palestine.
  Mr. THURTLE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is really a question for the Palestine Government, and not for the Colonial Secretary?

  FACTORIES (TWO-SHIFT SYSTEM).
  Mr. KELLYasked the Secretary Of State for the Home Department the period of time during which the firms who received permits for the two-shift system operated such system; and is there a periodic inspection of the factories whilst the system is in operation?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): It was provided in Section 2 of the Employment of Women, Young Persons and Children Act, 1920, under which these Orders are made, that all Orders should be in force for the same period as the Section, namely, a period of five years from the commencement of the Act. The Section has since been continued in force each year by the Expiring Laws Continuance Acts, and the effect has been to extend the duration of the Orders accordingly. The works are periodically inspected both by the district staffs and by the women deputy superintending inspectors who are specially charged with the supervision of these Orders.
  Mr. KELLY: Is a close look kept upon some of them, particularly those engaged in food production and in explosives manufacture?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I cannot give the hon. Member particulars as to any exact inspection without notice. If he will put down a question, or write to me, I will let him know exactly when an inspection has been made.

  VAGRANCY.
  Mr. W. M. ADAMSONasked the Minister of Health the number of casual vagrants for the areas of Staffordshire, Worcestershire, and Warwickshire for the quarter ending March last?
  Sir K. WOOD: The available figures as to numbers of casual vagrants are those relating to Friday of each week. The average numbers on Friday nights in the quarter ended March last in the Union Counties of Staffordshire, Worcestershire and Warwickshire were 278, 127 and 318 respectively.
  Mr. W. M. ADAMSONasked the Minister of Health whether he has approved of any proposals to sanction improved wards for casual vagrants under the joint vagrancy committees of Staffordshire, Worcestershire, and Warwickshire; and if he can state the estimated costs, with the districts within these areas to which they apply?
  Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend's sanction is not as a rule required to minor improvements made by guardians to Poor Law premises, and I am therefore unable to give the hon. Member a total figure, but during the past five years expenditure amounting to £13,412 in respect of major structural improvement of casual wards in this area has been sanctioned. I am forwarding details of this expenditure to the hon. Member.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    BENEFIT DISALLOWED, BOROUGH.
    Mr. DAYasked the Minister of Labour whether any special instructions have been issued from his Department to the Walworth Road (Borough) Employment Exchange, during the period of 12 months ended to the 9th April, 1928, which caused the local employment committee to recommend for disallowance 4,037 applications for extended benefit out of a total of 12,363 applications considered?
    Mr. BETTERTON: No, Sir.
    Mr. DAY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that 1,300 of these applications have been refused, because the committee have considered that the

    173
    applicants have not been genuinely seeking work, and does he not think that this is an absurd number for such a cause to be given?
    Mr. BETTERTON: No, I am not aware of that figure. It is obviously a question for the committee.
    Mr. DAY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is the figure which he gave me last week?
    Mr. BETTERTON: If the hon. Gentleman says so, I take it that it is so.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Does the hon. Gentleman not consider that 33⅓ per cent. of disqualifications is a very large proportion, and can he say what is the general figure for the country?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The question on the Paper asks if there were any special instructions issued.

    MINE WORKERS.
    Mr. SHINWELLasked the Minister of Labour how many shale miners and oil workers in the county of West Lothian were registered as unemployed at the Employment Exchanges in March of this year, and how many were in receipt of benefit?
    Mr. BETTERTON: As stated by my hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary for Mines, on 15th March last in reply to the hon. Member for the Bothwell Division (Mr. Sullivan), separate figures

    Insured Persons classified as belonging to the COAL MINING INDUSTRY recorded as Unemployed at the Doncaster and Mexborough Employment Exchanges.

    Date.

    Doncaster.

    Mexborough.

    Wholly Unemployed.

    Temporarily Stopped.

    Total.

    Wholly Unemployed.

    Temporarily Stopped.

    Total.

    26th April, 1926

    …

    111

    1

    112

    62

    2

    64

    23rd April, 1928

    …

    710

    4,592

    5,302

    386

    1,547

    1,933

    JUVENILES (TRANSFER).
    Mr. KELLYasked the Minister of Labour what districts have made application for the transfer of juveniles into their area for placing in employment?
    Mr. BETTERTON: Vacancies notified by individual employers have been filled
    in respect of unempoyment among shale mining workers are not available.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Why is it that the figures cannot be furnished in respect of unemployment in this particular industry; are shale miners not classified in a separate category?
    Mr. BETTERTON: No; that is exactly the reason I cannot give them; they are not classified.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Will the hon. Gentleman make arrangements to have the proper qualification made?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I will consider that, but I cannot say at the moment if it is practicable or advisable.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Is there any reason why the hon. Gentleman cannot get this from the local Employment Exchange?
    Mr. BETTERTON: Yes, because they are not classified.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Labour how many mine workers were registered as unemployed at the Doncaster and Mexborough Employment Exchanges on 23rd April, 1926, and on the same date in 1928?
    Mr. BETTERTON: As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:
    by the transfer of juveniles from other districts, including mining areas. I am not aware of any applications by districts for such transfers.
    Mr. KELLY: Will the hon. Gentleman make known to the House the district or the areas into which these juveniles have been sent?
    Mr. BETTERTON: Yes; Yorkshire, the Midlands and the South of England are three of the districts, and there may be others.

    NEW EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, DARLINGTON.
    Mr. SHEPHERDasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, when building operations will be commenced for the new Employment Exchange at Darlington?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Vivian Henderson): The plans of the new Employment Exchange at Darlington are at present under discussion, but it is hoped to commence building towards the end of the year.
    Mr. SHEPHERD: Cannot the matter be expedited, so that the building can be occupied before the winter?
    Sir V. HENDERSON: That would not be possible, because provision has only been taken in this year's Estimates for part of the building, and we cannot complete the building on the amount taken in this year's Estimates.

    PRINCE CAROL OF RUMANIA.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY(by Private Notice) asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the manifesto drawn up by Prince Carol of Rumania, now in this country, and printed in London, calling upon the people of Rumania to oust King Michael and recall Prince Carol to the Throne; and whether he does not consider this action a breach of the comity of nations which would justify him in requesting Prince Carol to leave this country forthwith?
    Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: I would like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, why this question was ruled out of order yesterday and has been permitted to be answered to-day?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that I had a question submitted to me yesterday on this subject.
    Mr. MALONE: I handed several questions in at the Table last week.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think I saw them.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; and, after consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, I have caused Prince Carol to be informed that his presence in this country is no longer welcome, and that he should terminate his visit without delay.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask if, when the right hon. Gentleman gave permission for Prince Carol to visit this country, he invited assurances from him as to his conduct—
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is the subject of a further question.
    Mr. E. BROWN(by Private Notice) asked the Home Secretary whether Prince Carol of Rumania was granted a permit to reside in this country, and, if so, when it expires?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Prince Carol was allowed to land on the 28th April last for a temporary visit of two months.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I put my question to the Home Secretary—I had no idea that my hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) was going to ask this question—as to whether, when permission was given by the Home Secretary for Prince Carol to land, assurances were invited from him that he would not engage in any intrigues or political activities in this country?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, Sir.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Why not?
    Mr. THURTLE: Is the Home Secretary in a position to say whether there is any foundation in fact for the statement in the "Morning Post" and other papers to-day to the effect that this so-called Rumanian plot is really only a stunt organised by certain newspapers?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I can only say that I have received an intimation from Prince Carol, who was served early this morning with my request to leave, that he is writing to me on the whole subject. I cannot say any more.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: May I ask whether Prince Carol had a passport in the ordinary way, or whether some special arrangement was made in his case?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I must have notice of that question.
    Miss WILKINSON: With reference to the reply which the Home Secretary has given to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), may I ask why the Home Secretary treats royalty differently in this matter of propaganda from ordinary citizens?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is quite obvious from the action which I have taken that I make no distinction.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Is the Foreign Secretary going to make any statement upon this matter covering the application made by Prince Carol to visit this country, if he made any such application; and may I also ask whether the activities of Prince Carol were watched while he was in this country to see whether this plot was actually being carried out?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am not in a position to make any further statement to-day. I have made a communication to Prince Carol, and he has promised that I shall have a full statement from him. I shall probably receive it in the course of to-day or by to-morrow morning's post, and I can say nothing further in the meantime.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to take up this question with the Foreign Secretary to find out anything in regard to the matter which I have raised?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Foreign Secretary and I are in very close touch with one another in regard to the whole matter.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Are we to understand that the Home Secretary may reconsider his decision if Prince Carol's letter is satisfactory?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is purely a hypothetical question, and it is quite impossible for me to answer it.
    Mr. HARDIE: Since it has been found necessary to take these steps with regard to the gentleman who is asked to retire from this country, did it not
    178
    come into the right hon. Gentleman's purview whether he had a passport when he came into the country, and was it an ordinary passport?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have already explained that a visa or permission was given to this gentleman to come into the country. As to the exact nature of the passport, I cannot say, because I have not seen it.
    Mr. HARDIE: What are the reasons for sending him out of the country?
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not perfectly clear that whatever Prince Carol was doing, he was not doing anything that concerned this country and was not intriguing against this country?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is not the point. The point is that Prince Carol is not a British subject. He has come here to enjoy our hospitality, and he must do nothing while he is here which might involve us in trouble abroad.

RECONSTITUTED AND SYNTHETIC CREAM.
Mr. EVERARD: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to control the production, distribution, and sale of reconstituted and synthetic cream."
I am sure that the House will allow me its indulgence for a few minutes for the purpose of introducing a Bill which very seriously affects a very large number of people in this country. The dairy farmers and the great consuming public are materially affected by this Bill, and, before I explain to the House its general provisions, I should like to state the reasons leading up to its introduction. As is well known to all Members of the House, the Minister of Health, acting, as he believed, in the interests of the consuming public of this country, thought fit, as from the 1st January this year, to prohibit the use of any preservatives in the manufacture or sale of cream in this country, and the effect of that has been two-fold. While it has to a certain extent prevented or diminished the importation of cream from foreign countries and from Ireland, it has at the same time very materially increased the use in this country of synthetic and reconstituted cream, and that is the point to which

179
I wish the House to give its mind this afternoon.
As the House is, of course, aware, we have, up to the last few days, been having a considerable amount of cold weather, and therefore it would be reasonable to suppose that cream without preservatives, if it were going to keep at all, would keep during that period, but I have here a letter from the owner of a large creamery in the City of Birmingham—I do not know whether he is a constituent of the Minister of Health himself—in which he says:
"The first week that the Order came into force, I had 10 churns of cream sour—a loss of £50, and that during frosty weather. Since then I have lost 50 customers out of 70."
He goes on to say that whereas, before the Order came into force, his weekly sale was 500 gallons of cream, it has now been reduced to less than 100 gallons weekly. If that be so during cold weather, it is perfectly certain that worse conditions will prevail during hot weather.
For this reason a very large number of people in this country, comprising bakers, confectioners, ice cream merchants and hotel and restaurant proprietors, are installing machines called emulsifiers. I do not know whether Members of the House are aware what these emulsifiers are, but they produce by mechanical means cream of two distinct varieties. They produce what is called reconstituted cream, which is made from skim milk powder, very largely—indeed, practically entirely—imported from Holland, and from butter, which is generally imported from New Zealand, though a great deal of it is also imported from continental countries, and a certain amount of course, is English butter; and very often the only English product that is used in this particular method of making cream is the water with which it is mixed. The other variety, namely, synthetic cream, is a slightly different product. It is made in the same way, but, instead of butter, margarine is used, or some other imported vegetable oil. Therefore, I say that the public who are buying in the shops of this country what they believe to be cream buns, what they believe to be ice cream, or what they believe to be cream, are, in fact, getting something which has not nearly the same nutritive value. I am certain that anyone with any knowledge of
180
medical matters will know that, as far as synthetic cream is concerned, there is practically no food value in it at all, while, as far as reconstituted cream is concerned, it is perfectly certain that the very important vitamins which exist in ordinary cream do not exist to the same degree in reconstituted cream, so that it is a very much less valuable food for the people of this country.
What I want to impress upon the House is that, while it is stated in the advertisements relating to these machines—I have several of them here—that large extra profits can be made by using them, the general public are being asked to pay the same price for a very much worse article than ordinary English cream, and, therefore, I am asking leave to introduce this Bill, which will put the cream trade in exactly the same position as the dairy trade under the Milk and Dairies Consolidation Act. What the Bill does is, roughly, this: It gives the Minister of Health power to make special Orders for the registration with the local authorities of manufacturers of reconstituted and synthetic cream, and also for the registration of sellers of these articles, the inspection of premises, the labelling and marking of vessels, and the designation of the articles, so that they may be distinguished by the general public from ordinary natural cream. I am certain that there is no Member of this House who would not be willing that the general public should know, when they are buying cream, whether it is real, natural cream, or whether it is synthetic or reconstituted cream. The penalties under the Bill are exactly the same as those which are at present in operation under the Milk and Dairies Consolidation Act.
I should like to give one example, if I may, of some of the things which have happened in my own constituency within the last few weeks. I have seen the manager of a very large creamery in my Division, and he has given me some replies which he has received from some of his customers. This is one of them:
"I am sorry for not replying to your letter before. The reason we have not taken any further supplies of cream is that we have bought an emulsifier."
I have several others of the same sort, and I think that that will give the House a good idea of what is happening. I

181
hope that the House will give permission for this Bill to be brought in, because, first of all, of the effect of these articles on the health of the general public, since the general public are being sold something which they do not understand, and which, while they believe it to be cream, is not really cream at all; and also because it affects the great dairying industry and the farming industry of this country. I ask the House to allow me to introduce this Bill in the interest of the farming industry and the still more important interest of the consumer and the general public.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Everard, Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte, Brigadier-General Clifton Brown, Dr. Vernon Davies, Captain Ronald Henderson, Mr. Lamb, Mr. Riley, Mr. Smith-Carington, and Mr. Alfred Williams.

RECONSTITUTED AND SYNTHETIC CREAM.
  RECONSTITUTED AND SYNTHETIC CREAM BILL,
  "to control the production, distribution, and sale of reconstituted and synthetic cream," presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 125.]
ADVERTISEMENTS REGULATION (AMENDMENT) BILL,
"to amend the Law with respect to the regulation of advertisements," presented by Mr. Looker; supported by Lieut.-Colonel Heneage, Dr. Vernon Davies, and Mr. T. Williams; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 124.]

BETTING (JUVENILE MESSENGERS) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Reported, without Amendment, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Tuesday next.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Reported, with an Amendment, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Tuesday next.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY.
  [6TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  SUPPLY.

    CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1928.
    Considered in Committee.
    [Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]

    CLASS IV.

      PUBLIC EDUCATION, SCOTLAND.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £3,353,616, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929, for Public Education in Scotland, and for the Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh, including a Grant-in-Aid." — [Note.—£2,750,000 has been voted on account.]
      Mr. THOMAS HENDERSON: I desire to raise a question of some importance relative to the Estimates we are to discuss. I find, on going to the Vote Office and inquiring for reports of the different Departments, the latest we can get is dated 1926. The 1926 reports deal with the financial year 1925–26 and it is rather serious that we should be called upon to discuss Estimates for 1928–29 without a report on which to base our criticism. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will be prepared to give an explanation as to why there are no available reports for last year and an assurance that some attention will be given to the question in the future?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I wish to reinforce what the hon. Member has said. It is unfortunate, for two reasons, that we should have this Debate to-day. I had not realised that it was only a half-day, otherwise I should have resisted yesterday the Prime Minister's announcement that Scottish Estimates were to be taken. I understand that Private Business is put down for half-past seven, and I am sure Scottish Members did not realise that when they consented. It is extremely unfortunate that the whole of the Scottish Estimates should be put down for a half-day of Parliamentary time. I see that hon. Members above the Gangway are going to discuss three important questions—education, agricul-
      190
      ture and the Board of Health. Anyone who has any knowledge of Scottish interests knows that these are three colossal subjects. We have often discussed one of them alone for a whole day. There is no guarantee that we are to have any other time to discuss anything. I, therefore, think the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised to consult the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury with a view to allotting another day for Scottish Estimates.
      With regard to what the hon. Member above the Gangway has said, it is very unfortunate that there is not a single Report on any one of these three subjects at present in our hands. Last year we were discussing the Board of Health Report. It was one of the most interesting Reports I have ever seen published, but it was out of date. This year we have no Report at all. Education is one of the noblest subjects of which our native country has any cognisance, and we have not a single Report of any kind. For agriculture and afforestation there is not a Report in existence of later date than 18 months ago. I, therefore, reinforce as strongly as I can the hon. Member's appeal that we should have another day for a discussion of Scottish Estimates.
      The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): Of course, the Government are not involved in this except in so far as we agreed to the request of the Opposition to put down Scottish Estimates for this day. It is in the power of the Opposition to ask for a day for the subjects they desire, and if they desire another day for Scottish Estimates, they can make that request. With regard to the interruption of business, that is a matter over which the Government have no control. In so far as the Reports are concerned, of course it is regrettable that we should have this Debate without them. I have been expediting their publication, and I am told they will be available earlier this year than on any previous occasion, but that they are not available at the present moment is certainly the fact. At the same time, the matter was in the hands of the Whips and their request for this day was granted.
      Mr. T. KENNEDY: In putting down Scottish Estimates for this day, Scottish Members have to avail themselves of the opportunities that are open to them, and

      191
      the simple point before us is the responsibility of the Scottish Office in publishing these Reports in time for the Estimates to be discussed, as the other Estimates are discussed, within the time at our disposal. That responsibility is on the right hon. Gentleman, and he has not met it on this occasion.
      Mr. JAMES BROWN: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
      I would rather not have anything to do with the discussion to-day on Scottish Estimates if we are only to get a half-day. It never entered into my mind that that was all we were to get. Scottish education would be good for two days at any time. As for the Scottish Board of Health, we require several days. I notice that the Under-Secretary is not in his place. That itself might have moved us to report Progress. I do not think Scottish Members should sit under such an insult as to be offered half a day for the business that is before us.
      Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.
      Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
      The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

      ADJOURNMENT.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]
      4.0 p.m.
      Mr. STEPHEN: I gave notice at Question time that I would raise the question of the way in which seamen are being treated, but I want to protest now that there is no member of the Government present who can answer me. The way in which the House is being treated by the Government is disgraceful. When we were in Committee a few minutes ago, the Government had not reports available for us regarding Scottish affairs, and now there is no Minister in his place to deal with the question of which I gave notice. It is, therefore, no use for me
      192
      to continue my speech when I cannot get an adequate reply. I protest most strongly against the discourtesy of the Minister concerned and the Members of the Government.
      Mr. SHINWELL: The episode which has led to the wasting of hon. Members' time is one for which the Government are directly responsible. It has arisen because of the absence of material upon which Members representing Scottish constituencies can base their case against the Scottish Office. I am placed at a particular disadvantage inasmuch as, after prolonged absence from the House, I come here without the necessary material for Debate, and I find that the Secretary of State for Scotland is not in a position to furnish that material either to myself or to my hon. Friends. In these circumstances, we on this side were entitled to raise a protest in the manner that we did. We complain not alone of the absence of material, but of the procedure for which the Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible. The Government appear to have shirked their responsibility this afternoon by evading the issue in the Division Lobby.
      Mr. SPEAKER: I thought the hon. Member rose to raise some question on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House. It would be out of order for him to proceed with the speech he is now making.
      Mr. SHINWELL: I naturally desire to respond to your ruling, but it did appear to me that the circumstances which gave rise to the extraordinary episode of a few minutes ago were a subject that might properly be raised now.
      Mr. SPEAKER: I understand that the Committee was unanimous in passing the Motion to report Progress.
      Mr. SHINWELL: The episode is one to which the attention of the House should be directed. We are entitled to complain of the attitude of the Government in the matter. I respond to your ruling, however, and shall say nothing further.
      Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."
      The House divided: Ayes, 170; Noes, 102.

      Division No. 113.]

      AYES.

      [4.13 p.m.

      Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

      Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

      Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M

      Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

      Glyn, Major R. G. C.

      Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

      Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

      Grace, John

      Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

      Allan, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James

      Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

      Nelson, Sir Frank

      Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

      Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

      Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

      Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W

      Grotrian, H. Brent

      Penny, Frederick George

      Atholl, Duchess of

      Gunston, Captain D. W.

      Perkins, Colonel E. K.

      Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

      Hacking, Douglas H.

      Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

      Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

      Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

      Pownall, Sir Assheton

      Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. p. H.

      Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

      Price, Major C. W. M.

      Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

      Hamilton, Sir George

      Ralne, Sir Walter

      Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish.

      Hammersley, S. S.

      Ramsden, E.

      Bethel, A.

      Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

      Reid, D. D. (County Down)

      Betterton, Henry B.

      Harrison, G. J. C.

      Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

      Blades, Sir George Rowland

      Hartington, Marquess of

      Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

      Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

      Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

      Ropner, Major L.

      Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

      Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

      Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

      Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

      Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

      Salmon, Major I.

      Briggs, J. Harold

      Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

      Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

      Briscoe, Richard George

      Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

      Sandeman, N. Stewart

      Brittain, Sir Harry

      Henn, Sir Sydney H.

      Sanders, Sir Robert A.

      Brocklebank, C. E. R.

      Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

      Sandon, Lord

      Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

      Hills, Major John Waller

      Savery, S. S.

      Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)

      Hilton, Cecil

      Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew. W)

      Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

      Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

      Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

      Burman, J. B.

      Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

      Skelton, A. N.

      Burton, Colonel H. W.

      Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

      Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)

      Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

      Hopkins, J. W. W.

      Smith-Carington, Neville W.

      Cautley, Sir Henry S.

      Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

      Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

      Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

      Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

      Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

      Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

      Hurd, Percy A.

      Sprot, sir Alexander

      Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

      James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

      Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

      Clarry, Reginald George

      Jephcott, A. R.

      Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

      Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

      Kindersley, Major Guy M.

      Steel, Major Samuel Strang

      Cooper, A. Duff

      King, Commodore Henry Douglas

      Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

      Cope, Major William

      Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

      Sugden, sir Wilfrid

      Couper, J. B.

      Knox, Sir Alfred

      Templeton, W. P.

      Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

      Lamb, J. O.

      Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

      Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

      Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

      Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

      Curzon, Captain viscount

      Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

      Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

      Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

      Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

      Tinne, J. A.

      Davits, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

      Loder, J. de V.

      Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

      Davies, Dr. Vernon

      Long, Major Eric

      Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)

      Dean, Arthur Wellesley

      Looker, Herbert William

      Warrender, Sir Victor

      Dixey, A. C.

      Lougher, Lewis

      Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

      Ellis, R. G.

      Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

      Watts, Dr. T.

      Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

      Lumley, L. R.

      Wayland, Sir William A.

      Everard, W. Lindsay

      Lynn, Sir R. J.

      Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

      Falle, Sir Bertram G.

      MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

      Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

      Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

      Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

      Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

      Fermoy, Lord

      Macintyre, Ian

      Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks, Richm'd)

      Fielden, E. B.

      Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

      Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

      Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

      Macqulsten, F. A.

      Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

      Fraser, Captain Ian

      MacRobert, Alexander M.

      Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

      Frece, Sir Walter de

      Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

      Ganzoni, Sir John

      Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

      Gates, Percy.

      Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

      Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain

      Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

      Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

      Margesson.

      NOES.

      Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

      Day, Harry

      John, William (Rhondda, West)

      Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

      Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity)

      Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

      Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

      Gibbins, Joseph

      Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

      Attlee, Clement Richard

      Gillett, George M.

      Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

      Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

      Gosling, Harry

      Kelly, W. T.

      Barr, J.

      Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

      Kennedy, T.

      Briant, Frank

      Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coins)

      Lansbury, George

      Broad, F. A.

      Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

      Lawrence, Susan

      Bromfieid, William

      Griffith, F. Kingsley

      Lawson, John James

      Bromley, J.

      Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

      Lee, F.

      Brown, Ernest (Leith)

      Groves, T.

      Lindley, F. W.

      Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

      Hall, F. (York., W.R., Normanton)

      Lowth, T.

      Cape, Thomas

      Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Lunn, William

      Cluse, W. S.

      Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

      MacLarsn, Andrew

      Compton, Joseph

      Hardle, George D.

      Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

      Connolly, M.

      Hayday, Arthur

      Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Jamas I.

      Cove, W. G.

      Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

      Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

      Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

      Hollins, A.

      Maxton, James

      Dalton, Hugh

      Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

      Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

      Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

      Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

      Murnin, H.

      194

      195

      Palin, John Henry

      Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

      Wellock, Wilfred

      Parkinson, John Allan (Wigan)

      Stamford, T. W.

      Welsh, J. C.

      Ponsonby, Arthur

      Stephen, Campbell

      Westwood, J.

      Potts, John S.

      Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

      Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

      Ritson, J.

      Sutton, I. E.

      Whiteley, W

      Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)

      Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

      Wiggins, William Martin

      Rote, Frank H.

      Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

      Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

      Batter, Dr. Alfred

      Thurtle, Ernest

      Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

      Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

      Tinker, John Joseph

      Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

      Shiels, Dr. Drummond

      Townend, A. E.

      Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

      Shinwell, E.

      Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

      Windsor, Walter

      Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

      Varley, Frank B.

      Wright, W.

      Smillie, Robert

      Walihead, Richard C.

      Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

      Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

      Snail. Harry

      Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

      Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. T. Henderson.

      Adjourned accordingly at Twenty Minutes after Four o'Clock.

  METROPOLTAN POLICE (BAIL FORFEITURES).
  METROPOLTAN POLICE (BAIL FORFEITURES).
  LEATHER PRICES.
  LEATHER PRICES.
  WHOLESALE PRICES (INDEX NUMBERS).
  WHOLESALE PRICES (INDEX NUMBERS).
  BENZOL.
  BENZOL.
  HOLLESLEY BAY TRAINING CENTRE.
  HOLLESLEY BAY TRAINING CENTRE.
  FRESH MILK (IMPORTS).
  FRESH MILK (IMPORTS).
  MAY HOUSING (CENSUS STATISTICS).
  MAY HOUSING (CENSUS STATISTICS).
  POOR LAW RELIEF (GLASGOW AND GOVAN).
  POOR LAW RELIEF (GLASGOW AND GOVAN).
  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK.
  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK.
  TOBACCO (WITHDRAWALS FROM BOND).
  TOBACCO (WITHDRAWALS FROM BOND).
TRANSPORT.
  TYNDRUM-BALLACHULISH ROAD.
  TYNDRUM-BALLACHULISH ROAD.
  VICTORIA DOCK ROAD.
  VICTORIA DOCK ROAD.
  NEW ROAD CONSTRUCTION (JORDANS).
  NEW ROAD CONSTRUCTION (JORDANS).
  SOUTHERN RAILWAY (LIVE RAIL FATALITIES).
  SOUTHERN RAILWAY (LIVE RAIL FATALITIES).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (GILLINGHAM EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to Gillingham; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 7) BILL. [H.L.]
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Amman Valley Joint Sewerage District, Barry, Bury, Leicester, Loughborough, and Rugby; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (EQUAL FRANCHISE) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
STRETFORD AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
SANDOWN URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
WEALD ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
WEY VALLEY WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
NEWQUAY WATER BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
HASTINGS CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
LEEDS AND LIVERPOOL CANAL BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
NOTTINGHAMSHIRE AND DERBY SHIRE TRAMWAYS (TROLLEY VEHICLES, ETC.) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

OTLEY GAS ORDER, 1928.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Paper.
Moved, That the Special Order which was presented on the 20th of March last be approved.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HEMEL HEMPSTED DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1928.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion which is on the Paper in my name.
Moved, That the Special Order which was presented on the 27th of March last be approved.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

POST OFFICE (SITES) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill. A Bill of this kind comes before your Lordships almost every year as extensions of telephone and postal facilities are required. This Bill has been passed already in another place. It is to enable the Postmaster-General to acquire land for the extension of the head post office in Leeds and for telephone exchanges in Manchester, Ashton-under-Lyne and Denton, and also in Uxbridge and Warrington, and to give power to construct a subway under a disused burial ground in Mount Street, Mayfair. This subway is to enable an automatic telephone exchange to be opened in Farm Street. Every effort will be made to protect the trees and the amenities of the ground which, although it is a disused burial ground, is now very largely used as a pleasure ground, as some of your Lordships may know. The roof of the subway to be constructed is to be at least sixteen feet below ground and it is not anticipated that any of the bodies buried there will be interfered with. In case of any interference Clause 16 of the Bill provides that they shall be decently and reverently buried somewhere else. The Westminster City Council have given their consent and Clause 7 has been introduced to protect that council. If any of your Lordships desire further information as to any of the sites I shall be very glad to give it, but this Bill was passed without any opposition in another place and I do not think there will be any objection to it here.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed.

IMPORTATION OF PLUMAGE (PROHIBITION) ACT, 1921, AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Danesfort.)
EARL BUXTON: My Lords, I should have liked to make some observations when the Second Reading of this Bill was taken, but I was abroad at the time. I would now claim the indulgence of your Lordships on the ground that for the last five years I have been Chairman of the Statutory Committeee created under the Act of 1921 in order to carry out its provisions, though, of course, I hope your Lordships will understand that in what I say this evening I speak entirely on my own behalf as I have had no opportunity of consulting my Committee. The original measure enacted that the import of all plumage should be prohibited except under certain conditions. One of these provided that birds ordinarily used for food purposes in England, mainly game birds, should be admitted, and that licences could be given for scientific purposes, museums and so on, to import birds. The Schedule, which was to include birds of which the plumage could be legally imported, included the ostrich and the eider-duck, but a Statutory Committee was appointed with the special object of considering all the various birds whose plumage certain persons desired to import and to decide, subject, of course, to the assent of the Board of Trade, whether particular birds should be included in the Schedule or not.
That Committee was a very representative one. It was constituted to include two experts in ornithology, three representatives of the feather trade, four other members and an independent Chairman. It met in the earlier stages very frequently, in order to consider the various birds that were brought to its notice. Almost the first thing that the Committee did was to decide to exclude at all events the bird of paradise and the egret from the Schedule on the ground that the demand for these birds, which were among the most ornamental, was diminishing their numbers, and that in the case of the egret the acquisition of the feathers was also bound up with considerable cruelty. The Committee
982
then considered the various applications made by chambers of commerce, by the trade and by individuals. The Committee took these applications one by one, and in the end decided to add eight or nine birds to the Schedule in addition to those already contained in it. These birds were included for various reasons: either, as in the case of the common rhea, on the same ground as in that of the ostrich, or because the bird was so common that there was no likelihood of it being diminished or exterminated by any demand for its plumage; or because the bird was pernicious and destructive and its extermination would be an advantage rather than a disadvantage; or because, like the golden pheasant, the bird was reared, like the ostrich, specifically for its plumes without any cruelty being involved. Birds in these classes were therefore included in the Schedule. As finally agreed upon, after very careful revision by the Committee, that Schedule was, I think, generally accepted at the time, and I have heard no criticism directed against it in regard to the birds that were included in it.
I should like to say here—and I think I can speak on behalf of the members of my Committee as well—that the Act of 1921 has been a distinct success in many respects. It has undoubtedly very much diminished the import of birds' plumage, it has discouraged the wearing of plumes and it has appealed also to humane feeling in regard to these birds. I should like to add—and again I think I can speak on behalf of the Committee—that the success of that Act, so far as it has been a success, has been mainly due to the efficient action taken by the Customs in regard to these imports of feathers. This was, to them, a distasteful task because they had no expert knowledge and it was very difficult sometimes to decide whether a feather was legally or illegally imported. Sometimes, indeed, the experts of the British Museum have been unable to decide. There was the additional difficulty that, instead of these feathers being imported in the form of whole skins, they were very often imported as single feathers or with feathers from various birds made up on one mount and often dyed and clipped, so that it became extremely difficult to decide their nature. Nevertheless, through their efficient action, the Customs authorities have

983
undoubtedly reduced enormously the import of these birds, and I, for one, am very grateful to them for the interest that they have taken and the efficient way in which they have carried out their duties.
In spite of this fact, though this trade has been scotched, I do not think, watching this question carefully, that it has been by any means killed. I think that the present Act required the strengthening that it will receive if this Bill is read a third time and passed by this House and the House of Commons. I have said that there has been a diminution of the wearing of these feathers, but from time to time there is a curious recrudescence of a demand for them. Four or five years ago a considerable number of the reputable shops that deal in these things had in their catalogues a considerable number of advertisements offering egret feathers for sale, mainly in hats. I drew the attention of the Customs Department to these advertisements and asked them to inquire into each case as to whether the feathers that were advertised had been imported before the Act of 1921 came into force or subsequently, and I am glad to say that, so far as those inquiries went, they showed that the feathers had been imported before the Act came into force. In a letter to The Times I drew attention to this matter, pointing out that this constituted a considerable temptation to others to smuggle and provided an attraction for those who did not mind wearing these feathers.
I am glad to say that this had an effect for some time; but that sort of effect wears off, and quite lately, even in the last few weeks, there has been another recrudescence of these advertisements and catalogues offering feathers in hats for sale. I hold in my hand an important exhibit—in contradistinction to my noble friend's exhibit the other day—of spring advertisements and other advertisements displayed by no fewer than twelve of our largest firms that deal with these matters, in which they offer these feathers for sale, either as plumes or in hats. I am having inquiry made with regard to these cases to see how far, as I hope and believe, they will be able to show that these feathers, like those of some years ago, were pre-Act feathers. The trade have played the game. There is no doubt that before the Act came into
984
force, during the months between the passing of the Act and its coming into operation, the trade and these shops quite legitimately did lay in very considerable stocks, and so far as these shops are concerned, I think they are drawing upon those stocks.
On the second Reading some doubt was expressed by one or two speakers who supported the Bill as to whether these feathers could last as long as seven years without deteriorating, so as to make them valueless, and I think the Paymaster-General and my noble friend opposite spent an unnecessary amount of time in trying to show that these feathers will last longer than seven years. My noble friend opposite (Lord Peel) on the Committee stage produced the skin of a bird, which had been in the British Museum for forty years. Of course the conditions in the British Museum—under glass, or in drawers—are quite different from those which exist in the trade. It seems to me, however, that the question of the time for which these feathers will last is quite irrelevant to the present Bill for this reason: if the feathers which are offered for sale are shown to have been imported before the Act came into force then it shows that they will last for at least seven years. If, however, they have been imported since the passage of the Act the question of age or time does not arise. Therefore I think that the question of how long these feathers will last really has nothing to do with the merits of this Bill.
I have referred to these spring catalogues and circulars because my noble friend opposite founded one of his main arguments on the fact that, as he said, "there was no market for these plumes, that no one wanted to buy them," and that therefore it could not be to the interest of any one to run the risk of incurring penalties by smuggling them into the country. I hope I have shown that such a trade exists, that it is going very strong, that there is a considerable demand for these feathers, that they are sold at a considerable price, and that therefore there is great temptation and great inducement to persons to smuggle these feathers into the country in order to sell them.
As the Act was originally passed, your Lordships are aware that it only

985
prohibited the importation of the feathers of birds not included in the Schedule, and that it made no reference to the illegality of their sale in this country. The question was raised when the Bill was going through this House, and it was then thought that it would be a rather hard measure at that time upon a perfectly legitimate trade, which was a large trade, and the traders in which had laid in large stocks. It was thought that any attempt to deal with sales at that time would be very harassing to the traders and, rightly or wrongly, the House decided against the proposal to include sales.
That, however, was seven years ago, and circumstances have altered very considerably since then. Traders have got accustomed to these prohibitions. Prohibitions have reduced enormously the imports, and plumes which were imported before the Act came into force must have become more or less exhausted. There is therefore nothing hard or harassing in now adding this provision to the Bill, and it does seem to me that it is a logical corrollory of the original Act. The original Act prohibited importation, and if feathers are illegally imported there can be no hardship in prohibiting their sale in this country.
The Government's position was explained on the Second Reading by the Paymaster-General and by the Leader of the House. They, at first, proposed to oppose the Bill. On second thoughts, however, and seeing that there was considerable feeling in the House, they did not challenge a Division on the Second Reading, but said that they would consider the matter and their position on the Third Reading.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I do not think it is quite that. I have read the debate, although I was not here. My noble friend the Leader of the House said there was evidently a good deal of feeling on the subject, and also a great deal of difference of opinion on the evidence, and he thought that it would be a good thing to postpone decision until the Third Reading stage, between which and the Second Reading he hoped the matter of the evidence would be carefully gone into. It was in consequence of that, as the noble Earl will remember, that I made what I am afraid was a rather long statement
986
on that question of evidence on going into Committee.
EARL BUXTON: I quite agree. I entirely accept the position as stated by my noble friend. At all events there was considerable feeling, and so my noble friend was called in to assist in the matter. He is a sort of handy man, a maid-of-all-work, who is called in to introduce and to help Bills, and in this case, perhaps, to sweep up some of the broken crockery, when necessary. He made, what is a very unusual thing in this House, a long Second Reading speech on the Motion to go into Committee, in order to put before the House certain facts from returns in regard to these matters. I am glad that he has done so, because it is these very figures that I propose to traverse on the present occasion, and I am glad to know exactly what his position was. He based his arguments on some return given in reply to a Parliamentary question in another place. This return was originally prepared at the request of my Committee, and unfortunately it is not in the same form as the earlier returns, and it is therefore not easy to compare with them.
I think that any noble Lord who was here the other day, and heard my noble friend opposite, would have come to the conclusion that the seizures contained in that return were practically the imports of feathers, but they are in fact only the figures of seizures by the Customs House, and it is quite certain that while a good number are seized, a certain number must elude the vigilance of the Customs House officials, because feathers are especially easy to hide from observation. They are soft, light, and easily packed away so as to elude detection and observation by the Customs House officers, and I should think there is nothing easier to conceal or more difficult to detect than feathers. Then there is the individual person, male or female, who can very easily bring in these feathers on his or her person to a considerable amount without any declaration and afterwards put them on the market. Now I come to the return which my noble friend quoted and on which he based his definite opposition to the Bill. My noble friend committed himself to this very definite proposition. After mentioning two bad cases, one of which was the grebe case and the other the case of

987
a valuable consignment of egret feathers, he said:
"Those were no doubt two bad cases of attempted smuggling during the last seven years and they were the only bad cases."
I must traverse that statement. I am quite certain that my noble friend had no intention whatever of misleading the House, but I can put forward quite a different proposition to that stated by my noble friend.
In the first place I will take the figures as a whole. These returns are very remarkable because they show that the number of sections of plumage of different sorts imported into this country which are seized by the Customs still amount to many thousands a year. Although I admit to the full that there has been a diminution in them, the amounts at the present moment are alarming and give cause for great disquiet. What is still more remarkable is that the figures go up and down. The figures are given for three years. In the first year, 1925, 4,000 bits of plumage, as I will call them, were seized—a great deal more, of course, were imported; in 1926, 5,000 bits of plumage were seized; and last year 2,000. But what is rather disquieting is that in 1925 1,000 of these plumages were egret feathers of different sorts, whereas in 1926 no fewer than 3,000 of them were egret feathers, which are specially desired in the market. That, I think, shows that there is at all events something wrong in the present position.
Then my noble friend took the total and presumed that unless there was a prosecution in the case of imports those imports, if seized, were of an innocent character and their introduction was not made with any intention of deception. I agree to this extent, that a very large proportion of these imports are undoubtedly brought in by persons who are ignorant of the law, who are innocent of any deceit, and the feathers are seized because they are illegal. But it is certain that there must be a very large margin of cases in addition in which there is intentional deception, either by concealment or by misrepresentation, and a large number of feathers come in undetected. My noble friend knows two bad cases. One of those cases was the case of 130,000 grebe skins which were brought in a few years ago. I believe it is a fact that, though those 130,000 skins were seized, they escaped detection at
988
the Custom House; and it was only after they had got through and were being despatched that information came to the Customs, and they were able to seize them.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It was more than a year or two ago; it was five years ago.
EARL BUXTON: It makes no difference. My point is that if 130,000 grebe skins can get through in one consignment alone surely there must be plenty of other holes in the net which allow other feathers to be brought in under wrong declarations. My noble friend's assumption is that these cases in which there is no prosecution on behalf of the Customs are innocent cases. I think the important fact ought to be borne in mind that no Government Department, and the Customs still less than any other, can afford to bring a prosecution unless it is certain that it is going to win. It has to make its position water-tight before it can venture to bring an action against those who are bringing in illegal goods. Some time ago the members of the Committee had before them the evidence of one of the representatives of the Customs, and this is what he said—and I think it is very important from the point of view of the number of prosecutions and why there have not been more owing to the difficulties of dealing with them from the Departmental point of view:—
"It is of the utmost difficulty for us to produce a case which is water-tight in a Court of Law.—
That is a case of illegal importation—
"Quite clearly we do not want to institute a prosecution which is not going to succeed. The result is that the proportion of importations of prohibited plumage in regard to which we can take proceedings with any chance of success is only an infinitesimal proportion of the whole number of seizures."
He does not say anything about the other cases being innocent cases; he says they often cannot prosecute because they have to make their case clear first.
Rather remarkable confirmation of that is to be found in the grebe case—the Arcos case. They were able to confiscate these 130,000 grebe skins illegally imported, but they were not able to prosecute those who imported them, because their difficulty was to prove the guilt of the consignee. That shows what the difficulty of the Customs is when it

989
comes to a prosecution. My noble friend said that in seven years there have only been two bad cases of attempted smuggling. It is a minor correction, but I may point out that it is six years, and not seven, that the Act has been in force.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It was passed in 1921.
EARL BUXTON: It did not come into force until 1922. It is six years this month since it came into force. I would also point out that in giving his figures my noble friend had before him the returns of the last three years only. Perhaps he did not realise that it did not cover the whole period that the Act has been in operation. And even then it is curious that he did not quote among his bad cases two cases which were in these returns. One was the case of the illegal importation of storks' feathers, for which the introducer was prosecuted, convicted, and fined £5, and the other was a very serious case which occurred in 1927, only a few months ago, a case of illegal importation of some egret feathers, which were not brought in innocently but as a consignment declared as isinglass, not feathers at all. That was a very clear case of smuggling, and to my mind quite sufficient to justify the passing of this Bill.
My noble friend stated that since the Act has been in force, which is the period covered by the discussions, there have been only two bad cases. My noble friend will bear in mind again what I said about the difficulty of prosecution on behalf of the Customs, which to a certain extent accounts for there not being a very much larger number of cases brought into the Courts. During the whole period since the Act came into force, excluding the grebe case, which was not prosecuted, and including one case in which the man charged absconded before the action was brought on—a confession of guilt—there were fifteen cases in all as against the two which my noble friend mentioned. Only one of those cases was dismissed. In all the others the Customs were successful in obtaining a verdict. Curiously enough, in the worst case of all, a case in which the declaration of consignment stated that the cases contained eggs and nothing but eggs, the Customs House officer in probing the eggs came across some feathers by accident. In the five cases of eggs feathers of the bird of
990
paradise were found to the value of £2,500 concealed amongst the eggs. Unfortunately, though the suspicion was as grave as it possibly could be, they were not able to bring home actually to the consignees a guilty knowledge of the consignment and therefore that case was dismissed. It was a very bad case and one of the worst of the lot.
That leaves fourteen cases of attempted smuggling, of attempts, in other words, to bring these illegal feathers in by means of false declarations. In some cases they were declared as feathers, but the designation of the feathers was false; that is to say, they were not what was stated in the declaration, but were feathers of birds in the Schedule, feathers which were legally imported. Still worse, in the other cases, as in the case of the eggs, the declaration of the contents of the consignment did not mention feathers at all but articles of another description. One lot was brought in as a Japanese screen, another as eggs, another as toys and another as silk, etcetera. In other cases there was no declaration on the part of the person concerned, but it was discovered that these feathers were concealed about his person. That, these were all grave cases is shown, I think, by the fact that the magistrate imposed in each case a heavy fine, and very heavy costs in some of them.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Might I interrupt the noble Earl? I do not want to have any dispute about questions of fact. The noble Earl says there were fifteen prosecutions. What years do they cover?
EARL BUXTON: The whole period of the Act.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Are they since 1922? I ask because they do not agree with my figures.
EARL BUXTON: I am answering what my noble friend stated—that there were only two cases during the seven years that the Act has been in force. I am endeavouring to show that not only were there fifteen of these bad cases but that two of them came under the returns that he had in his hand of recent date, which in themselves were bad cases and either of which would have justified the passing of the Act. In order to show the gravity of those cases the magistrates imposed

991
fines of £50, £20, £10 and so on, with costs up to £30, £20, £7 and less. That shows at all events that the magistrates considered these were cases of great gravity. In those circumstances, and in view of the figures I have given, I would like to ask my noble friend whether he adheres to the statements he made on going into Committee, and by which he rather desired, as I understood, to induce the House to throw out this Bill. The first statement he made was that "it was true to say that there was no attempt to smuggle" these articles into this country. After the figures I have given of these prosecutions and the reasons why they are not more numerous, can he still make that statement to the House? I should think it would be impossible to repeat it with any truth.
After the figures I have given showing in detail the cases of the last few years (I have them here), can he repeat the statement to which I have referred, that there were "only two bad cases of attempted smuggling during the last seven years"? I have shown that there are at least seven times as many. And if the Act was necessary in regard to the two cases on which he based himself, surely, when I have shown him that there are seven times as many, he may alter his view in regard to the necessity for the Bill. After I have produced them to him and he has had the advantage of looking at these advertisements, catalogues and so on, does he still contend, as he did on going into Committee, that "there is no market for these plumes and that nobody wants to buy them"? Surely that has been shown by the facts I have given to be entirely contrary to the fact. Will he also contend, in the last place, with this market and with obviously a considerable demand still in existence, that "there is no temptation to smuggle these articles"? If, as I hope, I have somewhat weakened his position on all these points which he made against the Bill, surely the Government may be induced to look more favourably upon the measure and to feel that it might very well be allowed to pass.
The two Government speakers on Second Reading fell back on two arguments. In the first place they said—and my noble friend repeatedly told us but did not emphasise it
992
as much as they did—that this Bill creates a new offence and that that was a great mistake. I think everybody agrees that gratuitously to create a new offence is a mistake and a disadvantage. But I deny altogether that this Bill creates a new offence. The Act has been in existence for seven years. During the whole of that time it has been known that these particular feathers must not be imported and that it is against the law to import them. Surely, therefore, any one who deliberately imported them for sale during that time or imports them in the future would know that he was not only acting against public opinion but breaking the spirit if not the letter of the law. It seems to me that a new offence is not in any sense set up, but that an opportunity is given of removing the temptation to commit an offence.
The second objection taken was that the part of the Bill which provides that if those who imported this plumage can prove that they did so before 1922 they will be removed from its provisions, was contrary to the spirit of the English law and the Constitution. That point will be raised by Amendments to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, and, no doubt, noble Lords on both sides of the House will deal effectually with it. Therefore, I will not say more about it than that it seems to me to be founded on a fallacy. As I have already said I have more than once—and I am proposing still to do it—asked the Board of Trade and the Custom House, when I have shown them advertisements for these plumes, to find out whether the plumes so advertised were pre-1922 plumes or not. If the House decides that the Act ought to be amended in that way, I am afraid that I, myself, the Board of Trade and the Customs will have to plead guilty to having broken one of the main provisions of the British Constitution.
I believe the body who would welcome this Bill most would be the Customs themselves. It was a distasteful Act to them, and they have had great difficulty in enforcing it. Nothing would help them more than the passing of this Bill under which all smuggling would necessarily cease, because then there would be no market for the goods here. That would

993
immensely relieve the Customs of the work in which they are involved. May I make one appeal to the Government that at all events they should leave this Bill to the House to decide for itself? I would go even further than that. The Government have argued—and I hope I have by my figures convinced them that their case is weaker than they thought—that there is practically no smuggling existing, and therefore that it is not necessary to pass this Bill. If the Bill can do no harm, it will at all events be an emphatic declaration on the part of the public that this great trade should be brought to an end. Many of my friends believe that there is a substantial amount of smuggling going on, and we want complete security as regards this matter. Let it once and for all be brought to a final conclusion so that there can be no further evasion in regard to this question of plumage.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I did not know I should be asked to reply so soon, because I thought that probably other noble Lords wished to speak. I will deal with some of the points raised by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Buxton). First of all I would say that the noble Earl was a little ungrateful to me. He complained that I had made what he called a long Second Reading speech on going into Committee. I explained at the time why I did it. It was because I wanted at the first possible moment to place the facts at the disposal of the Government before the House, and I expected to be thanked for it rather than otherwise. Indeed, I think the noble Earl himself is the last person who ought to have attacked me on that point. See what an advantage it has given him. He has read, evidently, every word of the statement I made, and not only read it but has marked and learned and criticised it. Therefore I do not see why he should attack me for giving him such an unusual opportunity for making a speech. I do not wish to repeat, except by way of summary, the statement that I made on going into Committee, but I will say something about some of the points that were raised by the noble Earl and the questions he asked me.
I was glad that he admitted that in his opinion, owing to the action of the Act of 1921, the import of these prohibited
994
feathers had enormously decreased. I am very glad to pay tribute to the active work of the Customs. But the noble Earl thinks that there is still a certain amount of smuggling going on, and that some further Bill is necessary to deal with that. I want to make this clear in one sentence, if I may, that any criticism I make on the Bill is founded on this, that the Act of 1921 did not prohibit the sale of this particular class of plumage. It permitted, and deliberately permitted, the traders of the country to dispose of those stocks which they had in hand, and forbade the import of further quantities of these feathers. Amendments were moved during consideration of the Act of 1921 to prevent traders dealing with existing stocks, but an Amendment to that effect was rejected in another place, and the Bill was passed in its existing form. As very often happens before prohibitions—we are familiar with this in the case of the Budget taxes—unusually large stocks were imported into the country and, unfortunately for the traders, coincident and perhaps connected with the prohibition of import, there was also one of those remarkable changes of fashion which upset traders so much—that is to say, there was practically an entire falling away of the trimming of hats with feathers, and in the fashion of wearing feathers. If things had gone on normally as they were going in the years 1920 and 1921 probably in about seven or eight years those stocks of feathers would have been disposed of, and the whole matter would have been completed. But that has not happened. We have these large stocks still existing in the country, and traders find it very difficult to sell them.
As naturally follows when fashion changes, the price of these feathers has steadily fallen. If it were necessary, I could give figures to show that there has been a tremendous fall in the price of this class of feathers during the last few years. Noble Lords will see that that has a very close bearing on this present inquiry. If the price of these feathers has fallen so heavily, and if it is very difficult to sell the feathers, obviously it is hardly worth while the trade, or any one else, running the risk of paying heavy penalties by smuggling in an object for which they can get very little when it has come into the country. I think the

995
point that I made as to the durability of these feathers is not so entirely irrelevant as the noble Earl thought it. I had not to deal with the case of the egret. That was no doubt kept under ideal conditions. The noble Earl did not complete the sentence from my statement, which was a statement from the experts, that not only under museum conditions, but under ordinary conditions of fair management these feathers would last for practically an indefinite period.
EARL BUXTON: I agreed that that was so, but pointed out it was irrelevant.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I pointed out that in my view it was not irrelevant, because, supposing feathers would only last three years and supposing that stocks of feathers were now being accepted for sale in shops, it would be an almost inevitable inference from that that they had been brought in since the year 1921. But you cannot draw that inference, because these feathers do last a considerable time. I submit, therefore that my suggestion was not at all as irrelevant as the noble Earl intimated. He then went on to criticise some statements that I had made about the Customs, and laid great stress upon the fact that I had stated that there were few substantial cases of smuggling during the last few years. He said that I was very much under-estimating the situation, but the other cases of smuggling which I gave were nothing like so substantial as the two cases—I think I have dealt with them—which occurred in the years 1924 and 1925. I submit that the years when they did occur is relevant, because if you are going to introduce legislation in order to penalise certain mischief it is very relevant when that mischief took place. If you find it has taken place, not in the last year but four or five years ago, that fact of date is very relevant. I have dwelt on these two particular cases because they were by far the most substantial cases of attempted smuggling which had occurred during those six years.
My figures as to prosecutions do not quite agree with the figures given by the noble Earl. The figures that I have been supplied with are eight prosecutions in 1923, two in 1925 and one in 1927. That seems to show that the prosecutions in 1923 killed the business. The prosecutions have been gradually reduced so that there were none in 1924, two in 1925, none
996
in 1926, and one in 1927. If you look into these cases you will see that certainly they cannot be called very large cases.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Is the noble Viscount quite correct? Was it not in 1924 that the grebe case was taken?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think the importation took place in 1923. I have admitted that these are two bad cases and I have laid stress on them. The point I wanted to make was that in introducing a new and penal Bill the onus of proof lies on those who bring in the Bill. Those of your Lordships who were not here when the matter was discussed before will perhaps like me to repeat the figures as to seizures. May I say in reference to these seizures that in the three years to which the figures relate the great bulk were what I may call private, that is to say, they were mere single feathers sent by people's relations to this country with no desire of smuggling or of concealment and in most cases in ignorance of the existence of prohibition as regards particular feathers.
I come now to the trade question, because it is the trade question we are discussing. In 1925 there were 48 seizures, in 1926 there were 26, and in 1927 there were 17. There has been a constant decrease during the last three years. It must not be supposed that all these seizures are seizures of smuggled feathers. They are not. The great bulk of these feathers come in quite openly. They are declared and there is no intention of deceiving the Customs or of smuggling at all. I make this general declaration after consulting with the Customs authorities, that they do not consider there is any substantial evidence of any general smuggling of these prohibited feathers into this country. That is the statement of the Customs authorities and your Lordships will no doubt give great weight to their experience. It will be said, no doubt, that it is possible that some feathers may escape the vigilance of the Customs. I think the case quoted about the grebe proves just the opposite. The noble Earl said these grebe skins passed the Customs and were afterwards discovered. That shows the vigilance of the Customs. Not only are feathers discovered when passing the Customs, but after they have passed the authorities gain some knowledge of them and pursue

997
them and penalise those in whose possession they are found.
EARL BUXTON: May I point out that in this particular case 130,000 escaped? No doubt they could be traced, but if 50 or 60 or 100 small packages passed the Customs they could not possibly be traced.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think this shows the vigilance of the Customs. If they escaped notice at first they did not escape notice afterwards. I think that point is irrefragable. Even if some of these feathers do escape the vigilance of the Customs, what evidence is there that there are illegal feathers—by "illegal feathers" I mean feathers imported after 1921—in the shops in this country? My noble friend Lord Danesfort, who introduced this Bill and is, of course, very active in the matter, went to the Board of Trade. He was not asked by the Board of Trade to specify any particular cases, but he selected eleven cases and I am sure he would not have selected the least bad cases. He naturally selected those most favourable to his case, and he said: "You will find openly exposed in these particular shops these prohibited feathers."
LORD DANESFORT: May I interrupt my noble friend? Quite inadvertently, no doubt, he misrepresents me. What was done was this: I asked some people to go and buy or see if there were on sale in some of the shops in London some of these feathers. They were not carefully selected. They were taken casually. They happened to be highly reputable firms. The Board of Trade asked for the names of the shops visited and I at once gave the names. If the Board of Trade say these people are innocent it does not follow that less reputable traders are innocent.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Then I am apparently wrong. They were not carefully selected but carelessly selected by my noble friend, and I am bound to say I should have thought if he wanted to make out a case that he would have selected places where these feathers were most likely to be found. He did not state the rest of the case at all correctly, if I may say so. The Board of Trade did not say—I dare say they may have said these are reputable firms—that these firms were innocent. They gave these
998
names to the Customs and the Customs went most carefully into every single case. They went to these firms, they examined their books, and they satisfied themselves that these feathers had been imported into this country before 1921. There was no evidence at all, they informed me, of any illegal importation. My noble friend now says they were not selected, but I stated this at the Committee stage and he certainly did not deny it on that occasion.
There was another case which was brought before the Board of Trade at the instance of the noble Earl. I do not want to mention the name but it was a very well-known firm indeed. That shows how easily people are deceived, because the individual who went to make the inquiry got the impression that these feathers had been brought in from Paris. This information was derived from a young lady fifteen years of age. This young lady, no doubt anxious to sell the goods, probably suggested that the goods came from Paris. The case was carefully investigated and the goods were shown to have been brought in before 1921, so that case was disposed of. I say that all these cases brought before the Board of Trade and the Customs have been carefully investigated and it has been shown that in no case were any of these feathers imported after the year 1921. What I submit is, that though the noble Earl and the noble Lord may make assertions about imports of prohibited feathers after 1921, they can produce no evidence to support their statement.
If noble Lords intend to make a new offence and to punish people and to bring them into Court and ask them to prove their innocence, at least they ought to put before your Lordships some strong evidence that these articles are really imported and sold in this country. After all, who wants to import these feathers? The noble Earl has shown some pictures of certain hats with a few feathers in them that are advertised for sale. That is no proof whatever that these feathers were illegally imported. Surely the more innocent interpretation is that these people naturally want to get rid of their existing stocks and are trying to force the sale of their feathers on the market, although, in spite of their advertisements, it is a very difficult matter, since even Paris, which is the head and centre and starting-point of all

999
these fashions, is moving more and more away from this style and is going back to a more simple style of head dress. If, therefore, the prices have fallen, if the demand is falling off, surely, in the absence of evidence of original sale, the presumption would seem to be that there is very little smuggling, because the object of smuggling would be extremely small.
I think, further, that this Bill has some element of unfairness. I will say only one or two words on that point, because I understand that this issue will be raised by my noble friend Lord Merrivale in the Amendments of which he has given Notice. You may say: "After all, six or seven years have gone by, so why not change the original Act and make it impossible for people to expose these goods for sale?" If the Bill is passed in this form this would certainly be the effect. You cannot imagine that reputable traders are going to try and get rid of their stocks of remnants by exposing them in their shops for sale when at any moment they might be brought by some informer before a magistrate, in such conditions that the informer will not have to prove his case, but the assumption will be that the seller has committed an offence and must prove his innocence. That might be a very difficult task in many cases. Many of the traders that sold substantial stocks may have gone into liquidation or out of business and it will not be easy to show before a magistrate that goods that could be traced to a firm that had gone into liquidation were bought before the year 1922. That would have the effect of putting an end to the option allowed in the Act of 1921 to these dealers to dispose of their existing stocks and it would be a reversal of the liberty given under that Act. Under the guise of making it more difficult to deal in imported feathers, you would bring in the people who were dealing in legitimate stocks that they were allowed to sell by the Act of 1921.
There is one more point that I should like to mention. I mention it with some hesitation because it touches a question of trade in another country. It was represented to me that a Bill like this would have an unfortunate effect not only on sellers in this country but also on the ostrich trade in South Africa. My noble
1000
friend said, I think, that on the contrary it would have a good effect, because, if you prohibit certain classes of feathers, people will buy more ostrich feathers. I do not know why a man should buy ostrich feathers just because he cannot buy other feathers, but, as a matter of fact, that statement is based upon a considerable misapprehension of the psychology, if I may so call it, of the feather trade. I am told that you cannot thus separate the kinds of feathers one from another, that they are linked together and that the trade in feathers rises and falls as a whole. You cannot get women to use only ostrich feathers. They insist on having combinations of feathers along with the ostrich feathers and, if other feathers are prohibited, then the ostrich feathers will not come in. I do not want to lay too much stress on that point, but I hope that your Lordships will give it a sympathetic consideration. As a matter of fact, if you look at the figures showing the value of a pound's weight of ostrich feathers imported into this country during the last few years and compare it with the value before the War you will see a tremendous falling off—I think of one-tenth or one-eleventh of the amount before the War.
I cannot say that the Government have had very much independent support. On the Second Reading I think everybody who addressed the House spoke against the Government, but I am afraid that in this House one is accustomed to this: the Government are often in the position of not being supported by their friends though attacked by their critics. I am quite aware that on the part of many of your Lordships there has been a good deal of feeling in support of this Bill, but I do submit that, before you pass a new penal Bill of this sort, you ought to have substantial evidence that these prohibited feathers are really being sold on some scale in this country. I submit to your Lordships that those who have supported this Bill have not discharged that onus and have not shown that there is such a traffic in the shops of this country. I do not wish to detain your Lordships any longer on that point. I do not know what attitude your Lordships will wish to take towards the Third Reading, but I observe an Amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Merrivale, which would certainly make

1001
the position much fairer. I understand that his Amendment provides that, instead of the onus being thrown on the man who has sold these feathers and has been brought into Court, it has to be discharged by a proof of guilt by the man who brings the seller of the feathers into Court. I hope that your Lordships will look upon that as an improvement.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, my noble friend did not say whether the Government intended to allow the Third Reading, so far as they were concerned, to proceed and to deal with the question of principle upon the other matter in discussing the Amendments of which I have given Notice. There is a great difference between supporting measures for preventing the sale of feathers that is contrary, as some people think, to humane conduct, and exposing a trader to conviction except under ordinary principles of law. I have a definite view about each, but I have not knowledge enough about the trade to have a strong view on the former point. Many friends of mine support my view, and it would help a little if we could know if the Government are content to bow to the feeling of the House in favour of the Bill and to raise the question of fairness on the Amendment.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I too wanted to know what the Government propose to do, because, in point of fact, the noble Viscount devoted a portion of his speech to supporting the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Merrivale, which had not been moved. If it is the will of the House that the whole question should be debated now and that there should be one Division, be it so, but it is no use dealing with this thing in uncertainty. What do the Government mean to do?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I sat down because I rather waited to know what was the wish of the House. On the Second Reading a good deal of feeling was undoubtedly shown in favour of the Bill and, so far as the Third Reading is concerned, unless the Government receive some support and a desire is shown to press the matter to a Division, I should not desire to urge this House to divide.
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Clause 1:
Amendment of 11 & 12 Geo. 5. c. 16.
1.—(1) Section one of the Importation of Plumage (Prohibition) Act, 1921, shall be amended—
(a) By adding at the end of subsection (1) the words "or sell or offer for sale the plumage of any bird the importation of which is prohibited by this Act"; and
(b) By adding after subsection (2) the words:—
"(3) Any person who sells or offers for sale the plumage of any bird the importation of which is prohibited by this Act shall, upon summary conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds and, in addition, the Court shall order the plumage, in respect of which an offence has been committed, to be forfeited. Provided that it shall be a good defence to proceedings for an offence under this section to prove either—

"(i) That the plumage had not been imported since the Importation of Plumage (Prohibition) Act, 1921, came into operation, or

"(ii) That all reasonable precautions had been taken by the person proceeded against to satisfy himself that the plumage had not been imported since the said Act of 1921 came into operation."

LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved, in paragraph (a), to omit the words "the importation of which is prohibited by this" and insert "which shall have been imported in contravention of the provisions of this." The noble and learned Lord said:, My Lords, This general subject has been discussed with a fullness and vigour that must have convinced the most indifferent observer that there is great feeling with regard to it. So far as that is concerned I do not know enough about the trade in ospreys and egrets, and things of that kind, or its effect upon the habits and humane instincts of the people of this country, to offer an opinion. Friends of mine, as I have said, support the Bill, and I should have hesitated to oppose an extension of the law which made it criminal knowingly to sell that which had been illegally imported. It seems to be a reasonable and logical proposal, and if this had been a Bill, as I thought it was when I first read it, to make it criminal to sell that which was imported in breach of the law, I should not have thought for a moment of opposing it; but when there was a warm discussion on the Second Reading, and then a speech dealing very fully with the matter by Lord Peel on the Motion to go

1003
into Committee, I made some inquiries, and read the Bill with a little care, and I saw that, contrary even to what was said by Lord Buxton, this was not merely a Bill, as he put it, which you would defend by saying that if a thing was illegally imported there was no hardship in prohibiting its sale.
This is not a Bill which prohibits or penalises the sale of that which is illegally imported. It is a Bill which enables people who have enthusiasm about this subject, as so many people have, if they find a trader dealing in goods which, as has been pointed out over and over again, may have been legally imported, and may have been on his hands, so as to expose him possibly to serious loss, to put up some man of straw to lodge a criminal information against him, to proceed against him for a penalty, with the alternative of imprisonment if he cannot pay the penalty. They may do it upon the footing that he has not shown himself to be innocent. That is not an English procedure at all. I am told there are Continental countries where, if the police think fit, they take charge of you and say: "We suspect you of some transaction which is a highly improper transaction, and we shall take you before the Tribunal. If you convince the Tribunal that you are not guilty then the Tribunal will acquit you, but if not, then you will be punished." That is the mode in some Continental countries, but it has never been our English custom.
If you are going to discriminate between humanity in respect of foreign birds and dealing according to English traditions of justice with English traders, my feeling is all in favour of the English traders. They should not lose their birthright of fair treatment in our Courts. I am not going into the general matter. As I have said, I thought that originally the Bill as drafted was in accordance with British principles of justice, but when I found it was not I framed an Amendment which I have placed on the Paper, and which provides that it shall be a criminal offence to sell, or expose or offer for sale, plumage which has been brought into the country in contravention of the provisions of the Act. Nobody can dispute that that is a sound course, and a course which is only consistent with our usual methods of administering justice. Having listened
1004
to this debate on the three stages of the Bill, I think it has been made clear that there is not some outrageous general breach of the law which ought to be punished by some exceptional means. I beg to move my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 10, leave out from ("bird") to ("Act") in line 11, and insert ("which shall have been imported in contravention of the provisions of this").—(Lord Merrivale.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, it will require very few words from me to satisfy you that the acceptance of this Amendment means the complete destruction of the Bill. If you think that there is sufficient strength in the argument of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Merrivale, to justify that course, take it by all means, but it seems to me rather strange, after this Bill has been ineffectually opposed by the Government at three successive stages, and on each occasion they have recognised that the feeling of the House was so strong against them that they were unable to go to a Division—because that is the reason they have not divided—that now you should by accepting this Amendment undo the whole of the work which has been done. That I am right in what I say will, I think, be clear to your Lordships from considering only a very few matters. There is no man who can say, by looking at a feather, whether it was imported lawfully or unlawfully. The noble Viscount, Lord Peel, says that feathers keep perfectly for years, and the better they keep the more impossible it is to know when they were imported. There is no one who can suggest any means or device by which you can, in any circumstances, prove in advance that feathers exposed for sale have been unlawfully smuggled into the country. If it be possible to prove that a man selling goods has been engaged in unlawful importation you would not want this Bill. You could proceed without it, and recover against him far more heavy penalties than this Bill provides.
Therefore if you think right, and think this Bill not worth the effort, reject it, but do not think that in voting for this Amendment you are voting for some great abstract principle of British justice, which can be incorporated into this Bill without damage. What is this great

1005
abstract principle of British justice? The idea is that a man shall not be convicted of an offence unless proved. I agree with that, but the offence which this Bill provides for is the sale of feathers, and it is exactly similar to a Bill already on the Statute Book, which has remained on the Statute Book for forty years, to which Lord Merrivale has taken no exception, and which provides that in cases where the sale of birds killed in this country shall not be permitted in shops, it shall be none the less possible for the trader to sell birds from other countries, but the burden of proving where the bird comes from is thrown upon him. The only difference is that that Act relates to the whole of the bird, and this Bill relates only to its feathers. There is nothing else in it. The importation of these plumes is now forbidden. Seven years have elapsed since the Act was passed. There is time for these people, I will not say to have cleared their stocks, but to have got down to a condition in which they can make a record and show beyond all doubt where their feathers came from, and escape any trouble, even if they sell them after this Bill is passed.
But when we are told that we are seeking to pass a Bill to protect ourselves against a non-existent evil, is that so? One hundred and forty-five thousand birds' plumes imported in one consignment! It is true they were caught—not stopped at the Custom House, but caught subsequently. How do you know that 145,000 plumes have not got through without your knowledge? How can you tell? You can do nothing more except say: "Those things were found," but you cannot tell the things which went through without your knowledge. And to tell me that there was no trade in these feathers after the Bill of 1921 was passed because fashion changed is to leave wholly unexplained who it was who got the advantage of importing 145,000 plumes in one consignment. That is not all. The noble Earl has told you that quite recently they discovered a valuable collection of feathers illegally imported as eggs or isinglass. After these things to say that now, all of a sudden, people are going to be converted and to send in no more feathers is to my mind ridiculous. And when you add to that that you find these feathers are advertised for sale at a price of seven guineas for a humming
1006
bird, there is every inducement to smuggle them, and, having regard to the peculiar character of the ware that is being dealt in, there is every opportunity.
I know that whenever I speak on this matter I shall be accused, as I was before by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, of introducing sentiment into the question. I do not deny that hatred of cruelty is a sentiment. It is a sentiment that you cannot possibly justify by Adam Smith's "Political Economy" nor by the laws of mathematics. It is not a matter of logic, it is a matter of feeling. But it is a sentiment that separates men from beasts, and it is a sentiment to which I have always found that this House gives a very straight and a very swift reply. I do not deny that I have been moved in my advocacy of this matter by the feeling that I have for the living beauty of the world which will be, and has been, trodden under foot to gratify this particular trade. If we could only make women realise the true sense of their duty and abstain from wearing these plumes of course the whole thing would be done. Though their education may have proceeded a little way it has not proceeded far enough, and something more has to be done. I ask you to pass this Bill. I ask you not to grasp at the shadow of the Amendment put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Merrivale, and let the substance of the matter slip, to seize the husk and let the kernel fall, and for a fetish of a phrase defeat this Bill, to which you have given already three days' attention and consideration.
LORD DARLING: My Lords, if I thought that this Bill so outraged the well-known principles of English justice, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Merrivale, has said, I would vote for his Amendment, but I do not think it does. There are cases in the law as it stands where, certain things having been proved which raise a presumption of guilt, as here, the onus is shifted on to the accused person to prove, not his innocence but something which will convince the jury that he is not guilty. Now I think this is a proper safeguard, and that the Amendment proposed by my noble and learned friend is not necessary, because it is provided
"that it shall be a good defence to proceedings for an offence under this section to prove either"—

1007
these things are perfectly distinct; you do not have to prove both—
"that the plumage had not been imported since the Importation of Plumage (Prohibition) Act, 1921, came into operation"—
Now, that might possibly be a difficult thing to prove, but you need not prove that, provided you prove
"that all reasonable precautions had been taken by the person proceeded against to satisfy himself"—
not to satisfy your Lordships, but to satisfy only himself—he may be a person easily satisfied—
"that the plumage had not been imported since the said Act of 1921 came into operation."
It does seem to me that if such a case were to be tried, either by a magistrate or before a jury, a man, unless he were very, very guilty, might easily satisfy the tribunal that he had taken reasonable precautions to convince himself that this plumage had not been imported contrary to law. For that reason, if my noble friend goes to a Division, I shall feel no compunction whatever in voting against the Amendment.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, said that he had been charged by my noble friend the Leader of the House with giving way to feelings and sentiment on occasions of this kind. I have not the slightest intention of making any such charge against the noble and learned Lord.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I have not the slightest intention of denying it.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I do not wish to make such a charge, because I think we all of us are entitled at the proper time to give way to our feelings and sentiments. All I would ask is that if your Lordships have, as no doubt many of you have, strong feelings on this subject, you will not allow those strong feelings to interfere with the sentiment of justice which also reigns very strongly, I know, in your hearts. But I do think that the noble and learned Lord was unjust in more than one particular. He made a rather vigorous attack on women. I think it was on the Second Reading that he said that, though they were naturally kind-hearted, they seemed very often indifferent and cruel when it came to matters of taste and of what they would wear. I think that was an unfair charge, because it
1008
was not merely a change of fashion that was responsible for the dropping of the practice of wearing these feathers, but it was a very strong feeling among the women themselves who wore them that it was a wrong and cruel thing to kill these birds. Their action and their kindness of heart were largely responsible for the fact that fashion did alter in that way.
The noble and learned Lord pleads on behalf of his feeling for the beauty of the bird. I do not think that the noble and learned Lord has any monopoly of feeling on that subject. I think we are all interested in preserving the beauty of our birds and of foreign birds as well. But that has not a very close bearing on the particular Amendment which is before the House. When you have decided, so far as your Lordships are concerned, that it shall be an offence to sell these feathers or to expose them for sale, the question is, what form the action should take. I was very much struck by the observation made by my noble friend Lord Merrivale that there was certainly no evidence, and he had listened to the whole debate, of any outrageous general breach of the law which would justify so severe an action as sending these men into Court to try to prove their innocence. Had the selling of these feathers been forbidden by the Act of 1921 I think one could not have complained. In that case obviously if they were exposed for sale the onus would be on the person exposing them for sale; he would be primâfacie guilty. But they were allowed by the Act of 1921 to sell their existing stocks. Therefore, in that case there seems to be no fair legal presumption that they should not have the usual benefit of the law.
The noble and learned Lord differed, I think, from my noble friend who introduced the Amendment by saying that there were precedents for action of this kind. There may be precedents, but it is better, surely, to follow the older, fairer and more general precedent that a man is innocent until he is proved to be guilty than to take a precedent under which he is brought into Court and has to prove his innocence. The noble and learned Lord said that if you pass this Amendment you will stultify the Bill. Why should that stultify the Bill? If there is evidence to show that these men

1009
are selling feathers which were illegally imported, then there is no lack of evidence, and therefore you can proceed. But surely it is a very hard thing to say that this Bill is of no use unless you put the man himself into the box to prove that these feathers were imported before 1921.
LORD DARLING: I beg the noble Viscount's pardon; that is not what he has to prove. He has to prove that he himself was reasonably satisfied—I think those are the words.
LORD MERRIVALE: The words are, "that all reasonable precautions had been taken."
LORD DARLING: That all reasonable precautions had been taken not to violate the Act of 1921. That is all he has to prove and nothing more.
VISCOUNT PEEL: May I point out to your Lordships that some of these points are very difficult for the man to prove. Take the case of a man who has bought, as many of these men have done, from dealers. Owing to the fact that this trade has fallen to pieces many of the dealers have shut up their businesses. They have either liquidated or gone bankrupt or what not. It is extraordinarily difficult for the man in question to show before the magistrate that these goods were acquired from a merchant who himself had acquired them before 1921. I submit that your Lordships ought to be satisfied with a compromise of this kind. You get the Bill. You make it illegal to sell these prohibited goods. At the same time you leave the matter where it stands. If you accept the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Merrivale, you will do no injustice. If you take the Bill as it stands and lay the onus upon the unfortunate person himself you will do something which, I think, in the circumstances, savours a good deal of persecution and injustice.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I was very anxious to hear what the noble Viscount
had to say about this Amendment on behalf of the Government. I think it would be presumption on my part to intervene in a matter of this kind when high legal luminaries are discussing, I might almost say, abstract points of law. Let me deal with the point as a matter of common sense. When the Act of 1921 was passed its object was to stop the sale in England of the plumage of certain birds. The form it took was to say that the plumage should not get into England but should be barred at the Customs. A merciful provision was inserted in the Act by means of an Amendment, that the man who was selling the plumage after the passing of the Act should be able to excuse himself if he could show that the plumage was brought in before 1921. It is now proposed that that shall be a permanent condition upon which the trader may count as his defence, and that the onus of proving that he is mistaken must rest upon the person prosecuting who, presumably, can have no means whatever of proving anything of the kind.
What possible means has the purchaser, whether a man or a woman, who believes that feathers were imported after 1921, of proving that they were so imported? The merciful provision in the Act is being extended to what would seem to me, as one quite bereft of abstract legal knowledge, to be a degree which is not reasonable in any way. Is the man who has such feathers twenty or fifty years hence still to be able to say: "Unless you can prove that I did not import them subsequent to 1921, I fall back upon the supposition that I am innocent until I am proved to be guilty." It seems to me to be a misuse of the Amendment that was put into the Act to protect people who then had such feathers in stock, and that it would be almost absurd to extend the merciful provision in such a way.
On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 39; Not-Contents, 46.

CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Northbrook, E.

Gladstone, V.

Powis, E.

Haldane, V.

Beauchamp, E.

Strafford, E.

Leverhulme, V.

Buxton, E.

Chesterfield, E.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Aberconway, L.

Howe, E.

Devonport, V.

Aberdare, L.

Arnold, L.

Denman, L.

Lambourne, L.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Bethell, L.

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

Northington, L. (L. Henley.)

Buckmaster, L. [Teller.]

St. Levan, L.

Carson, L.

Ernle, L.

Stanmore, L.

Clwyd, L.

Greenway, L.

Strachie, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Hawke, L.

Sudeley, L.

Danesfort, L. [Teller.]

Knaresborough, L.

Swaythling, L.

Darling, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Hailsham, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Novar, V.

Lamington, L.

Peel, V.

Lawrence, L.

Shaftesbury, E. (L. Steward.)

Manners, L.

Biddulph, L.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Airlie, E.

Castlemaine, L.

Merrivale, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Merthyr, L.

Lovelace, E.

Cranworth, L.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Cushendun, L.

Malmesbury, E.

de Clifford, L.

Redesdale, L.

Midleton, E.

Dynevor, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Munster, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Onslow, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Swansea, L.

Plymouth, E. [Teller.]

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Templemore, L.

Stradbroke, E.

Hindlip, L.

Teynham, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Wharton, L.

Elibank, V.

Jessel, L.

Wraxall, L.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Kylsant, L.

Wyfold, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the negative and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I beg to move my next Amendment, in paragraph (b).
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 14, leave out from ("bird") to ("Act") in line 15, and insert ("which shall have been imported in contravention of the provisions of this").—(Lord Merrivale.)
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, the last Amendment is to insert certain words in the proviso and to leave out paragraph (i).
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 21, after ("offence") insert ("of selling or offering for sale"), and leave out from ("prove") to the end of line 24.—(Lord Herrivale.)
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, in view of the fact that in the opinion of many of us who support this Bill the effect of carrying these Amendments will be to destroy the Bill altogether and render it perfectly useless, I would ask leave to consider the matter before I move that the Bill do now pass.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. The Bill deals with the position of British teachers in certain schools which have been established in foreign countries for the benefit of resident British communities. Many members of those communities in Egypt and China and other parts of the world are unable to afford to send their children to be educated at home but they naturally wish to give them a British education. They have, therefore, established schools intended primarily for the education of their own children. I say primarily because a certain number of people of other nationalities take advantage of the facilities thus provided. The schools, however, are thoroughly British in character and the majority of the children attending them are of British extraction. It is unnecessary, I think, to expatiate

1013
on the advantages which accrue to the British communities through the possession of these schools. They also afford valuable opportunities to teachers, who are encouraged by the Board of Education to take positions in these schools, of widening their minds by residing abroad and of improving their professional technique by observing the educational methods of other nations.
But up till now there has been one grave disadvantage which has prevented many teachers who would otherwise have done so from accepting positions in British schools abroad. Until the year 1925 a teacher was not able to count service outside the United Kingdom as service towards pension under the Board of Education superannuation scheme. Naturally teachers very much disliked the idea of losing or of postponing their superannuation rights. By the Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1925, and the corresponding Scottish Act which this Bill is intended to amend, the matter was dealt with in this way. A teacher was allowed to count four years in a British Dominion as service for pension and he was allowed to count one year in a British school in a foreign country as service towards pension. So far as the Dominions are concerned that has, I believe, worked very well. There is a system of exchange of teachers between Great Britain and the Dominions which satisfies all concerned. It is of great benefit to all. But as far as British schools in foreign countries are concerned the Act has not worked at all satisfactorily, one year being a period much too short to induce teachers to take up these positions. It is proposed by this Bill to extend that period to four years as in the case of the Dominions.
It is further provided that a teacher shall contribute ten per cent. of his salary to the British pensions scheme. That is necessary in order to ensure the solvency of the fund. In England a teacher has to contribute only five per cent. of his salary, the other five per cent. being contributed by the local authority which employs him, but I am informed that no hardship will be incurred by the teacher by reason of this additional five per cent. which he has to pay because he is able to recover it from his employers. The Bill is warmly supported by the National Union of
1014
Teachers. When it was introduced into another place it was commended from all sides. This is the first Bill I have had the honour of presenting to your Lordships, and I am proud to think it may be of some small benefit to our fellow subjects abroad and to members of the scholastic profession of which I have the honour to be a member.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Iddesleigh.)
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: My Lords, I do not think it is necessary for me to trespass on your Lordships' time for more than a moment of two but I would like to say on behalf of His Majesty's Government and my noble friend the President of the Board of Education that we feel that this Bill, though short and simple, is a very valuable one. We are most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, for bringing it before your Lordships' House. As he has already stated this Bill in another place has been accepted in all quarters and by all Parties. It had the rather unique experience of passing through all its stages in one sitting in another place. Therefore, I do not think it is necessary for me to do more than ask your Lordships to give your support to the measure the objects and purposes of which have been so ably put by the noble Earl. I should like however, if I may, to impress upon your Lordships two points. The first is that so far as can be seen no further expense will be incurred by this country by reason of the passing of this Bill. That, of course, is a strong point in its favour.
The second point, which has already been mentioned by the noble Earl, is that it is a defect in the existing law that while it provides that teachers should be allowed to count four years' service in the Dominions as pensionable service, it only allows them to count one year in foreign countries as such. That means that as the law now stands a teacher who goes to a foreign country for a longer period than one year imperils his pensionable service. That is certainly a shortsighted policy and it is felt that it will not encourage the best type of teacher to go abroad, while at the same time those of our fellow-citizens who, through no fault of their own, live in foreign countries would, in conse

1015
quence, suffer. Owing to that defect also it is felt that teachers of the right type would be likely to be deprived of the advantages which would accrue to them from going abroad in the general broadening of their outlook by sojourn in a foreign country. The Bill now before your Lordships would remedy this evil. I think it is unnecessary that I should trespass further on your Lordships time, but I would ask you to accord your blessing to a Bill which His Majesty's Government and my noble friend in another place consider to be an excellent Bill from every point of view.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order); Privilege Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

MEAT IMPORTS AND FOOT-AND- MOUTH DISEASE.
LORD ERNLE LORD ERNLE rose to move, That all refrigerated meat imported from countries in which foot-and-mouth disease is prevalent should be placed in cold storage at the port of landing, and not released for sale till the expiration of twenty-one days or of such shorter period as may be specially sanctioned. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise at a rather late hour in the evening but previous discussions on this subject enable me to go straight to my main point. They have established these facts: that foot-and-mouth disease is highly infectious, that it has now become so prevalent in South America as to be endemic, that at cold temperatures it preserves its infectivity, that the virus of the disease remains active in the blood of infected meat for a period of forty days, that if it is sold in this country during that period of infectivity it may be a source of danger to our livestock, and, finally, that the Government have no information as to the stages in the growth of the disease in South America and have no knowledge at all of the proportion of meat infected which is imported here from that country.
Refrigerated meat is either frozen, to last for an indefinite time, or chilled, to last for five or six weeks. It is only with the chilled meat that I propose to deal. The life of the meat and of the poison is practically coterminous; that is to say, the meat keeps for forty-two days and the poison lasts for forty days. The result is that chilled meat must be distributed, marketed, exposed for sale, sold and cooked in private houses when the virus of the disease is active in the blood. That being so, it is important to know how this meat is distributed in this country. On its arrival here it is not placed in cold storage but is distributed from the ship into all parts of the country by trains and motor lorries to the depots, market stalls and shops owned by the meat packing companies, as well as to independent butchers. In this way, taking the average of the last four years, 850, 000,000 cwts. of chilled meat are annually sold and marketed in this country, an unknown quantity of which is infected. If you consider the great extent of the trade and the number of persons by whom it is handled, if you think that a drop of blood or a smear on the coat of a man or woman will remain infectious for twenty-one days, if you imagine the score of ways in which a subtle and elusive poison may be spread, you cannot, I think, resist the conclusion that the importation of chilled meat into this country from countries in which foot-and-mouth disease is rampant not only may be a source of contagion, but actually is, and from its very nature must be, a danger to our livestock.
It is quite true that no case of foot-and-mouth disease has ever been traced to refrigerated meat. That would be a very important fact if more outbreaks could be traced to their origin. But they are not in any number so traced. "Origin obscure" is the usual report of an inspector, and it is among those obscurities of origin that the finding of the Research Committee that the virus remains in the blood for forty days becomes so intensely significant. I think it is obvious that the Ministry themselves suspect the danger. They show this by their negotiations with the South American Governments and the companies. They show it also by their Orders dealing with packing cloths and

1017
bones and so on. But they still seem to me to miss what is my main point. If the animal is infected, it is the meat itself that is infective through the blood. If a local authority dealt with an outbreak of smallpox by regulating the clothes of the patient, and allowed the patient himself to go freely into the crowd, it would make itself ridiculous. But is that not very nearly what the Ministry are now doing by their Orders? They deal with these packing cloths and with butchers' refuse, but they leave the meat itself, which is highly infective, to mingle freely with our daily life, to be marketed, sold and cooked in private houses without any control whatever.
What are the Government going to do? I sympathise with their reluctance to deal with food supply, and perhaps not least a few months before a General Election; but they surely cannot be content to wait until public opinion in South America is educated on this subject. A generation has arisen to which foot-and-mouth disease, in the mild form that it takes there, has become so familiar that it is allowed to pass quite unheeded from farm to farm, along the roads and the railways, through the markets and even into the quarantine stations. You cannot alter the habits of a lifetime in a few months, or even a few years. We cannot afford to wait until that has happened, and what do we gain by waiting? Whether you maintain the slaughter policy or abandon it, you are equally obliged to control the sources of foreign infection. If you maintain the slaughter policy and do not control the sources of foreign infection, you are wasting public money. You are feeding the disease with one hand and attempting to strangle it with the other. If you abandon the slaughter policy without controlling the infection, you are exposing British farmers to the disease, you are throwing upon them the loss by the death of their animals and the financial cost of their permanent injury and of treatment. To put it mildly, I think that the first course is inconsistent and that the second is unjust.
I wonder whether the public realise to any extent the full meaning of abandoning the slaughter policy without controlling all the sources of foreign infection. I hardly like at this late hour to inflict figures upon you, but I think I really must do so, because the subject
1018
is very important. In the nine years from 1919 to 1927 we in this country had 5,300 initial outbreaks. Compare that figure with the figures on the Continent, where the disease is allowed a freer course. In round figures, while we had 5,300 initial outbrbeaks, Germany had 1,132,600; Denmark, 168,900; Holland, 378,100; Belgium, 135,700; and France 314,300. Now, one of the greatest disinfectants is the sun. In our climate, sunless as it is, cold and moist as it is, we are going to suffer in all probability worse than our Continental neighbours. Take two bad years here and on the Continent. In 1920 we had 94 initial outbreaks; Germany, 746,500; Denmark, 5,400; Holland, 53,200; Belgium, 42,800; France, 168,500. Take 1926. In that year we had 204 initial outbreaks; Germany, 187,500; Denmark, 95,500; Holland, 62,600; Belgium, 35,500; France, 48,900. Those are terrible figures, but they do not tell one-twentieth part of the story, because you must remember that each of these initial outbreaks probably means from ten to thirty animals infected with the disease. In Spain, where they record the number of animals attacked, and not the initial outbreaks, the figure rose in 1920 to 2,032,600.
Those figures afford some measure of the value to us of the slaughter policy, and they afford some indication of what may happen in this country if that policy is abandoned, and the source of foreign infection not controlled. Of course the Government want to economise. They can save the taxpayer's money if they will control the source of infection, and return to the conditions which prevailed from 1892 to 1918. In those twenty-six years the veterinary staff of the Ministry was very small, and the annual sum paid in compensation for slaughtered animals was £12,000 a year. In the nine years, 1919 to 1927, the staff of the Ministry has been enormously increased, so much so that the salaries, bonuses and expenses are pretty nearly trebled, and the sum paid in compensation for slaughtered animals has risen to an average of £500,000 a year. That half million means the net figure after making allowances for salvage receipts. Even of those salvage receipts the unfortunate taxpayer seems likely now to be deprived. They averaged from 1919 to 1926 something like £90,000 a year. In 1927 they dropped to £77 11 s. 3d. That reduction took place

1019
partly because a smaller number of animals was slaughtered, but mainly because experience of the risk of handling infected carcases compelled the Ministry to adopt greater stringency. They no longer undertake salvage in the case of any group of animals among which infection has broken out, or which have been directly exposed to infection. They are all destroyed at once, there and then, and, if such severe precautions are necessary in dealing with infected carcases from Northamptonshire farms, perhaps the Government will tell us why no similar precautions are used for infected carcases from South American ranches.
A week ago a resolution was passed by the Royal Agricultural Society of England, which dealt with the infectivity of bones as well as of blood in refrigerated meat, and it practically eliminated the chilled meat trade, because it imposed upon it a limit of cold storage for seventy days. Whether a bully beef election is a real danger, or only a bugbear, I do not know; but my Motion—I admit it is less logical—goes less far than that. I leave to the Ministry the problem of bones. I believe that if they will tighten up their orders and see that they are carried out, they can deal with bones effectively. I deal only with the infectivity of the blood in refrigerated meat, and I interfere as little as possible with the supply of meat which, infection apart, is excellent in quality and uniform and regular in quantity. My Motion is:—
"That all refrigerated meat imported from countries in which foot-and-mouth disease is prevalent should be placed in cold storage at the port of landing, and not released for sale till the expiration of 21 days or of such shorter period as may be specially sanctioned."
That Motion means that six weeks must elapse between the animal being slaughtered and the carcase being exposed for sale. It secures that no refrigerated in eat coming from countries where foot-and-mouth disease is rampant can be handled, marketed, or sold, until the virus of the disease is extinct from the blood. In order that that may be done and that there may be time for sale, the keeping quality of the meat must be prolonged a fortnight.
That can be done by lowering the temperature at which the meat is chilled and keeping it in cold storage. The process
1020
is already familiar to the trade. It is adopted on emergencies, and the product is known as chilled meat. It will be marketed in this country with the poison gone out of it before it is released from cold storage. There is abundant storage accommodation at the three ports at which the trade is concentrated—London, Liverpool and Southampton, and the present charge is at the rate of 37 s. 6d. a ton per month, or, if you work it out, at a fraction under ¼d. per lb. The meat undoubtedly will lose that brightness of appearance which enables it at present to pass as fresh home-produced meat, but I am assured that the nutritive qualities of the meat are quite unimpaired. I do not know whether the suggestion has been before the Ministry before; if so, I hope they may reconsider their decision. If it has not, I hope they will give the suggestion their very careful consideration; for, if you come to think of it, this foot-and-mouth disease is a matter of most serious national importance.
It inflicts great suffering on the animals that it attacks, especially sheep, and though 97 per cent. may possibly recover many, especially the milking and breeding animals, are permanently injured. The outbreaks dislocate the business of farmers, they dishearten stock breeders and stock feeders, they threaten our milk trade, they endanger our export trade in pedigree cattle, and, finally, human beings are susceptible to this disease. Hitherto, the subject has been mainly treated on its veterinary side, and medical opinion has not yet pronounced authoritatively as to the means by which it can be communicated, or as to the diagnosis by which its presence can be detected. But the danger to human health and, I may add, to human life, is one which cannot be ignored. I beg to move.
Moved, That all refrigerated meat imported from countries in which foot-and-mouth disease is prevalent should be placed in cold storage at the port of landing, and not released for sale till the expiration of twenty-one days or of such shorter period as may be specially sanctioned.—(Lord Ernle.)
LORD KYLSANT: My Lords, I have listened to the speech of the noble Lord with much interest. The Motion before your Lordships to-day, whilst nominally to protect British herds from the dangers

1021
of foot-and-mouth disease being imported from abroad, would, if adopted, result in the maximum possible hardships to consumers of meat both in town and country. What are the facts? Last year, in 1927, the total consumption of meat in this country was 2,048,000 tons, of which no less than 925,000 tons were imported from our Dominions and foreign countries. Refrigerated meat is imported in either "frozen" or "chilled" condition, but frozen beef is inferior in quality to chilled beef, due to the low temperature at which frozen meat in maintained. Beef brought to this country in a chilled condition is nearly as good as the best home-killed beef, but, in order to ensure its satisfactory condition on arrival, the transport from port of loading to port of discharge should be accomplished within about twenty-two days.
It is possible to transport beef satisfactorily in a chilled condition from Canada, South Africa and Rhodesia, and everyone interested in the development of New Zealand and Australia hopes that before many years are past it will be possible to carry chilled meat home satisfactorily from these far-off Dominions. If chilled meat had to go into cold storage in this country for about twenty-one days its quality and value would be considerably reduced, as it would have to be frozen down hard in order to preserve it for this extra period; as a consequence the importation of chilled meat would cease, as there would be no object in transporting the meat in a chilled condition and afterwards freezing it down hard. Briefly, the result of the proposal of the noble Lord would be that nearly half of the people residing in England and Wales would in future have to consume meat of an inferior quality and the price would be increased on account of the elimination of competition with chilled beef. This, in my opinion, would be a heavy price to pay for a problematic reduction of foot-and-mouth disease in this country.
As a farmer myself I know what a very difficult time farmers in this country and in Wales are going through, and how they will welcome the steps the Government are taking to relieve them from the payment of rates on agricultural land and buildings, and also the new scheme of credit to farmers. The
1022
recent visit of the noble Lord, Lord Bledisloe, to the Argentine and Brazil in his then capacity of Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture has had most satisfactory results, as it has caused both the Governments of the Argentine and Brazil to take drastic steps in regard to the inspection of cattle, which should practically eliminate the possibility of chilled beef from South America arriving in this country affected by foot-and-mouth disease. I can only say that if the proposal of the noble Lord were adopted it would be one of the greatest inflictions that has ever been put upon the great majority of people in this country.
VISCOUNT NOVAR: My Lords, we have listened to two very remarkable statements from two great authorities on the different sides of a burning question, and, if I incline to the view of the noble Lord, Lord Ernle, it is certainly not as a Protectionist, because Free Trade is one of the last of my beliefs, but because I feel as an agriculturist that the whole question of successful agriculture in this country, which depends on its stock, is dependent upon the prevention of disease. And how do we stand? The last thing to be desired is that foot-and-mouth disease should become endemic in this country, as it is over all the rest of the world. There are, no doubt, advantages to some countries in pursuing the policy of allowing the disease to run, but it is certainly, with our class of stock, not to our interest to permit the disease to become endemic. We have experience in that line, because contagious abortion itself in our herds is already a sufficient handicap, without having foot-and-mouth disease added. The enormous cost of controlling foot-and-mouth disease to the taxpayer is not the only loss incurred, because, although a farmer may get compensation, hardly anything can compensate him when the whole of his stock has to be destroyed, and that is sometimes done over the whole of a wide district.
I had to serve on a Cabinet Committee at the time of the last great outbreak, when, in Cheshire, whole districts had to be cleared of cattle. And the danger is not only the cost to the taxpayer but the incapacity of the Ministry of Agriculture to cope with such an outbreak as then occurred. The mistakes that were made, the slowness of the slaughter and the

1023
great loss to the farmers themselves seemed to make it uncertain whether, unless the disease could be stopped, it would be possible to pursue the policy of slaughter. The real danger always seems to me to be that given these very serious outbreaks—one cannot very well see how the outbreaks are stopped, though stopped they are after enormous expense, trouble and loss—it is conceivable they may occur on an even larger scale than we have yet seen them; and in that case the policy of slaughter itself might be endangered. In the debate the other day it was shown—I think it was acknowledged by the noble Earl who spoke for the Government—that the Government really could not do very much and that the farmers had to protect themselves in importing stores and so forth in the same way as other industries. But the Government will have to do all they can to try to check the importation of disease. And I am certain of this: although the results may be serious as regards the supply of chilled meat from the Argentine, there is something even more important, and that is giving security to British agriculture in respect of its stock. Whether the proposal of the noble Lord who initiated the debate is one that is capable of being carried out I am not prepared to discuss, because I have not gone into the subject; but I am certain that it demands the very grave consideration of the Government.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF STRADBROKE): My Lords, the noble Lord who placed this Motion on the Paper would always command the attention of your Lordships' House because nobody, I think, is considered to be a higher authority on agricultural matters than he. Anything he said would always be listened to with the very greatest interest, and it will have been listened to with special interest to-night because he has brought forward a subject which has been before your Lordships already on several occasions and has been the cause of much anxiety to the country for some years. I can certainly assure the noble Lord, Lord Ernle, that what he has suggested will receive the most careful consideration of the Government. We are only too glad of any suggestions and I am much obliged to him for bringing
1024
this matter forward in the way he has done. We have listened to a most interesting speech from him and to most interesting speeches from other noble Lords on the subject of how to fight foot-and-mouth disease. Your Lordships will forgive me for saying that the Ministry of Agriculture are fully alive to the danger and that they endeavour to take all possible steps to eliminate the risk of the importation of this disease into the country. The Ministry are anxious to stop that risk and to put a stop to any suggestion that infection is being brought in through carelessness on the part of inspectors.
The noble Lord, Lord Ernle, raised the point of the virus that exists in the blood of the carcases brought into this country and which is supposed to live for forty days. I must inform your Lordships that it has been proved by experiment that the virus may exist for seventy-six days in the marrow of the bones of carcases. The experiments were only continued for that period of time because seventy-six days was considered to be long enough to cover the voyage of any ship from any part of the world to this country. As all experiments of that nature are very expensive they were not carried further, and we have to face the very unfortunate situation that the virus may live for a longer period than seventy-six days in the marrow of the bones of carcases. It has been mentioned already this evening that the voyage from South America to this country occupies about thirty days and, therefore, the twenty-one days which the noble Lord proposed should be added for the time during which this chilled meat would be kept in cold storage—
LORD ERNLE: The voyage takes 21 days.
THE EARL OF STRADBROKE: I am obliged to the noble Lord. In that case the twenty-one days to be added for the time during which the meat would be kept in cold storage would bring the period to only forty-two days altogether, and that would not eliminate the danger which we fear of the virus still being active after forty-two days in the marrow of the bones. With regard to chilled meat, the proposal of the noble Lord would not be practicable unless other precautions were taken, because chilled meat will only keep for forty days in good condition. He

1025
mentioned that there is another process by which the meat might be partly frozen. If that is done I believe that for sale purposes the value of the meat would practically drop to that of frozen meat. It would seem, therefore, that the process of freezing meat entirely should be gone into rather than there should be a half-and-half process of chilling and then freezing after it comes to this country. It is true that there is ample storage here for the chilled meat after it has been brought to this country; but naturally any lengthening of the period during which it was kept in such storage would add to the expense, which would be passed on to the purchasers of the meat. The noble Lord said that the cost of transporting the meat from the ship to the cold storage and of keeping it there for, I think a month, was 40 s. I am told that after that period the charge for carcases hung in cold storage is 2s. per ton per day; so that the cost might become quite considerable if it was ordered that carcases should be detained in cold storage for a long period.
Might I remind your Lordships that the Research Committee is always at work studying the viability of the virus in the carcases, the offal and the skin. That Committees makes all its experiments on the lines of treating the skin, the offal and the meat in the same way as they would be treated under commercial conditions. That Research Committee is composed of ten of the greatest experts on animal diseases in the country. Its Chairman is Sir Charles Martin, director of the Lister Institute, and two of our chief officers of the Ministry work with them. I think, therefore, that the Research Committee should command the respect and the confidence of the whole country. They are always on the look out for anything that may arise, and inform the Ministry and give them advice on any subject by which they can help us to eliminate the risk of the spread of the disease.
The noble Lord has given you various figures as to the number of outbreaks in this and other countries of foot-and-mouth disease. It is quite true that there have been a terrible number of outbreaks during the last eight years in this country. The greatest number was in 1923 when there were 1,929 outbreaks in this country costing £2,205,000, whereas last year (1927) the number went down
1026
to 143 outbreaks, costing £121,000; while this year so far there have been 91 outbreaks, costing £71,300. The number of outbreaks, therefore, has gone down steadily during these last years, which perhaps may be taken as an indication that the action of the Government has had some effect in reducing this scourge of foot-and-mouth disease. Although 91 may seem a considerable number, the greater majority of those cases occurred in January, the outbreak having commenced last year, chiefly in December. During the past six weeks, I am glad to say, there have been only two outbreaks, in two areas, one in Nottinghamshire, and one in Yorkshire, which are still declared infected areas, and one of those two will came off the list tomorrow, leaving only one case, that in the Yorkshire area which should be free on the 20th of this month.
As noble Lords know, we have taken steps to arrange for the Government of the Argentine to take on their part all the care that they can that infected animals are not sent to the slaughter houses, or if they are, that their carcases are not sent over to this country. We hope that that will have the effect of preventing any diseased carcases arriving here. At the same time we are not in any way going to relax the safeguards that we have thought fit to impose. The noble Viscount, Lord Novar, has referred to the fact that when I last had the honour of addressing your Lordships I mentioned that although these Regulations may be very good they are of no use unless the farmers carry them out, wholeheartedly. We do ask them to have confidence that the Government are doing their very best to eliminate all risk of contagion being brought into this country, and everything that they can to put a stop to any supposition that the disease is being introduced in any way which can be prevented. It is true that the expense incurred by slaughtering the animals is a very heavy one indeed, but it is only a trifle to what farmers would suffer if this disease became endemic in this country. You have only to look at the European countries concerning which the noble Lord, Lord Ernle, gave some figures, to see the tremendous losses they have sustained through this disease. The United States, I may mention, adopted the same policy as the Ministry are carrying out here of slaughtering animals, and

1027
they have expended a very much larger sum of money than we have done in stamping it out. They were successful in doing so on one occasion a short time after an outbreak, and again they tackled the matter in the same way, and I believe now they are quite free of foot-and-mouth disease. I understand that in Norway the same policy is being adopted with equal success, though of course Norway is hardly comparable with this country, being an entirely exporting country. They do not import, and therefore do not run the risk of imported animals bringing in foot-and-mouth disease.
The noble Lord said that the disease might be a source of danger to human life. I think that is, if I may be allowed respectfully to say so, problematical. We have heard of one suspected case, that of a man who is supposed to have got foot-and-mouth disease from the animals, but I cannot admit that the disease is a source of danger to human life. If it is that is certainly a matter that must be very carefully looked into. I do not know that I can add any further information to that which noble Lords already have as to the steps we are taking to prevent infection being brought into this country, but you may be sure we will leave nothing undone to bring about the elimination of any infection. I would thank the noble Lord, Lord Ernle, for bringing this subject before us. The suggestion he has made in regard to chilled meat will be carefully considered by the Government, and if anything can be done in that direction which will bring greater assurance to the people of this country and, above all, prevent the importation of disease, we shall certainly take steps to bring it into effect, but I cannot accept the proposition of the noble Lord at once. I can only say that we will give it the most careful consideration and do all that we can.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I am glad to hear what the noble Earl has just said, and I hope that the giving of the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Ernle careful consideration will mean something more than merely saying: "I will give your suggestion careful consideration; mind the step; good afternoon," and that we shall hear
1028
nothing more about it. The noble Lord has said that it must be remembered that the contagion survives in bone, I think he said for seventy-six days. He will remember that only about a week ago I made a suggestion that bones should be left out and that we might do something in that way in addition to the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Ernle. I hope that the noble Lord will not pay any attention to the statement made by the noble Lord on my left (Lord Kylsant), because after all, what does that statement amount to—that if Regulations such as my noble friend proposes are enforced, people will not be able to buy chilled meat under the impression that it is English meat, and they will have to buy frozen meat for which they will probably pay less, and that will be an advantage to them, though it might not be an advantage that will be welcomed by the people who are importing meat from the other side. So far as the consumer here in England is concerned, he will get meat, which, I understand from my noble friend (Lord Ernle) who is a great authority on the subject, is quite as nutritious in the frozen form as in the chilled form, though it does not look quite as nice, and therefore the consumer will get a good article for which he will pay a proper price, whereas under the present system he is probably getting meat imported by the noble Lord from Argentina which is sold by Mr. Smith, butcher, as the best home killed.
LORD KYLSANT: I would like to say at once that I have never imported an ounce of meat from anywhere.
LORD ERNLE: My Lords, after the speech of the noble Earl who represents the Ministry I can do nothing more than thank him for his promise to consider my suggestion. He spoke of America as an example. May I remind him that America puts a heavy duty on all meat from South America, which perhaps is rather a confirmation of my views than of those which he used as an illustration? I cannot press my Motion and therefore I beg the leave of the House to withdraw it.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at ten minutes past seven o'clock.

LONDON, MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (WORTHING EXTENSION) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
FALMOUTH WATER BILL.
  YSTRADFELLTE WATER BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
  GOVERNMENT STOCK AND OTHER SECURITIES INVESTMENT COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
  RATING AND VALUATION BILL.
  Returned from the Commons, with the Amendment, agreed to.

  DOVER GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  Message from the Commons to acquaint this House that they have appointed a Committee of five members to join with the Committee appointed by this House, as mentioned in their Lordships' Message of the 25th of April last, to consider the Dover Gas Bill [H.L.], and that they have ordered that the said Committee do meet the Committee appointed by their Lordship as proposed by this House.
  The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates
  1030
  from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

  Ministry of Health (Halifax and West Riding Provisional Orders) Confirmation. [H.L.]

  Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 5). [H.L.]

  Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Swindon Extension). [H.L.]

  Also the Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:

  Shropshire, Worcestershire and Staffordshire Electric Power.

  The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

  STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
  Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the petition for the
  London County Council (Ilford and Barking Drainage) Bill,
  ought to be dispensed with, and leave given to introduce the Bill.
  Read, and agreed to.

  CLEETHORPES URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
  The King's consent signified, and Bill reported with Amendments.
POOLE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  OXFORD CORPORATION (WATER, ETC.) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments.
  DAGENHAM URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
  Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  LEWES WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported with Amendments.

  DURSLEY GAS ORDER, 1928.
  Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Dursley Gas Light and Coke Company:
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

  WISBECH ELECTRICITY (EXTEN SION) ORDER, 1928.
  Special Order in respect of part of the urban district of Walsoken, in the County of Norfolk:
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

  COCKERMOUTH GAS ORDER, 1928.
  MARKET BOSWORTH AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1928.
  AIREDALE DISTRICT ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1928.
  FLECKLEY KIBWORTH AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1928.
  PORTLAND ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1928.
  Report from the Special Orders Committee, That no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Orders, and that there is nothing in these Orders to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  BIRMINGHAM GAS ORDER, 1928.
  Report from the Special Orders Committee, That no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Order, that they have received and considered a report from the Board of Trade upon the Order, and that there is nothing in this Order to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (EALING EXTENSION) BILL.
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (LUTON EXTENSION) BILL.
  Reported without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.