I beg to move the re-committal of the Bill in respect of Clause 5. I have given notice of my intention to move the re-committal in regard to Clauses 4, 5, and 6; but I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for West Salford (Mr. Lees Knowles), who has charge of the Bill, consents to the striking out of Clauses 4 and 6, and, therefore, it is not necessary to trouble the House in reference to them. Clause 5 contains a considerable amount of contentious matter, and I think the quickest way of discussing our points of difference will be to do so conversationally in Committee. It will certainly obviate the necessity of making set speeches. There is this justification for the re-committal of the Bill in regard to Clause 5, that clause was never really considered at all. It went through Committee without discussion in about one minute after midnight.

I have a series of Amendments to move in this clause, and the first is on page 2, line 2, to leave out "shall have reasonable cause to believe" and insert "is in the posses sion of evidence." The words which provide that the medical officer shall have reasonable cause to believe are much too vague.

I have now to move, on page 2, line 41, to leave out "or" and insert "and." My object in moving the substitution of "and" for "or" is to provide that the medical officer shall not in every single instance be able of his own motion to put the Act in force on a mere supposition. The Amendment will secure that the dairy farmer shall not be made the victim of a mere supposition.

I am afraid that I cannot accept this Amendment. If "and" is substituted for "or," it will let in persons outside the district in which action is to be taken by the Local Authorities. I hope the Amendment will not be pressed. see errata page 1

I should like to know what view the President of the Local Government Board takes of the Amendment.

I think there is great force in what my hon. Friend the Member for West Salford has said, that there might be disease outside a given area, and, in that case, the clause would be inoperative.

If the disease is outside one district, it would be inside another.

But there might be one district in which the Act is operative, whereas it would not affect another.

I quite agree with the right hon. Gentle- man that the clause ought to remain as it is in this respect. The substitution of the word "and" for "or" would render it necessary for the Acting Authorities to prove that damage would be done by infection before they can take action.

The next question is one which deals with the employment of a Veterinary Inspector. My hon. Friend has accepted the principle, but there is a difference between us as to the extent of the powers to be conferred. I propose to move in line 3, after the word "power" to insert the words "if accompanied by a Veterinary Inspector appointed by the Local Authority of the district." My main contention is that the Veterinary Inspector should be present whenever the dairy is inspected. I am strongly of opinion that the medical officer ought always to take the Veterinary Inspector with him, and I hope my Amendment will be accepted. I have received letters from the Metropolitan Dairymen's Society, and the British Dairy Farmers' Association, strongly supporting that view, and the hon. Member for East Norfolk (Sir E. Birkbeck) asks me to say on behalf of the Chamber of Agriculture, which he represents, that he much prefers my Amendment to that of the hon. Member in charge of the Bill, which provides that the medical officer shall be accompanied by a Veterinary Inspector or some other veterinary surgeon merely when he visits the cattle. He feels, as those connected with the dairy interest also feel, that it is necessary to have the Veterinary Inspector always there. My own opinion is that the duty should be discharged by the Veterinary Inspector, and that it would be quite improper to bring in any veterinary surgeon.

I must ask my hon. Friend not to press this Amendment. The Amendment which stands on the Paper in my name goes, I think, quite far enough. The question is not so much the consideration of the health of the animals as of the persons who are liable to be infected. I am not inclined to lay much stress upon the inspection of animals in the dairies, and my proposition is that the medical officer should be accompanied in his inspection by the Veterinary Inspector, or some other veterinary surgeon. I do not think it is necessary to have two Reports, but one Report from the medical officer will be quite sufficient. Then, again, the question of time is of importance, and it is quite possible that the Veterinary Inspector might be unable to accompany the medical officer in his inspection at the proper moment.

I quite agree with the hon. Member in charge of the Bill. I think that in many instances it would be found that disease has been disseminated without the animals having had anything to do with it. There are diseases which may arise from the condition of the dairy keeper's family, the state of the drainage, an imperfect water supply, and many other causes, and it is manifest that the opinion of a Veterinary Inspector upon the nature of the drainage or the water supply, or the state of the dairy keeper's family would have very little weight indeed. I, therefore, think that it would be undesirable to require the medical officer to be accompanied, in every instance, by a Veterinary Inspector. I hope that my hon. friend will withdraw his Amendment.

I am of the same opinion, because I believe that in many cases the presence of a veterinary surgeon would be altogether superfluous. There are many questions in regard to the dissemination of disease by means of milk which can only be investigated properly by a medical man, and the presence of a veterinary surgeon would be of no assistance at all. I would, therefore, recommend my hon. Friend to withdraw the Amendment.

As one who has had a great deal of practical experience, I would also recommend the hon. Member not to press the Amendment. I think lie mis-apprehends entirely the view of infection being conveyed through milk. There are many cases in which the infection does not arise from the state of the animals themselves, but from the conditions of the dairy, the drainage, the water supply, and other circumstances, altogether apart from the animals from which the milk comes. Almost without exception the milk comes from the cow pure, and the infection arises from circumstances in regard to which a veterinary surgeon can have no knowledge whatever. In Aberdeenshire it was proved that although infection was conveyed by the milk the animals themselves were perfectly healthy.

I hope that my hon. Friend will persevere with the Amendment. I believe that the objection to this part of the Bill originated with the Cleveland Chamber of Agriculture, and was ultimately adopted by the Central Chamber, which took into consideration all the points which have been referred to.

I think that the hon. Members who have advised the withdrawal of the Amendment have overlooked the Interpretation Clause of the Bill in regard to the word "dairy." If it provided that a dairy should mean a room in which milk is placed in large cans there would be no difficulty, and there would be no necessity for a Veterinary Inspector to go there, or to enter a shop in which milk is sold. Bnt "a dairy" is to include any farmhouse or cow shed, or any other place from which milk can be supplied. It is certainly my intention to take a Division upon the Amendment. I regard it as being of much importance, in view of the wide interpretation which may be given to the word "dairy."

In most of the cases in which infection has been communicated it has been proved that it arose from circumstances altogether outside the province of a veterinary surgeon.

I am afraid that the adoption of the Amendment would render the Act absolutely unworkable. That would certainly be the case in Ireland, because in many cases it would be necessary to send 20, 30, or 50 miles before the services of a veterinary surgeon could be obtained. There are always plenty of doctors, but the properly qualified veterinary surgeons are very few in number.

Just a word of correction on a matter of fact. It is not absolutely a fact that all diseases connected with milk arise from impurities introduced into the milk after it has left the cow. As a matter of fact, the latest investigations indicate that at least two dangerous and terrible diseases are capable of propagation by milk exactly as it is taken from the animal—scarlatina and diphtheria. This is a recent addition to our scientific knowledge. It has been ascertained that cowrs do suffer from scarlatina in a form identical with that in which the disease affects human beings, and it has been proved, on the strongest presumptive evidence, that milk from animals so affected may give rise to scarlatina in human beings, and be the cause of a serious epidemic. Researches carried on at the Brown Institute show, also, that the diphtheria poison can be communicated from man to cows, and the milk from a cow so infected did give rise to diphtheria in cats and other animals susceptible to the disease. But I do not say this is an argument for accepting the Amendment. The business of the Medical Officer of Health is to trace and control an epidemic, and his investigation would be directed to the milk supply, the drainage, the water at the dairy, and the persons connected with the dairy, and if he found nothing to account for it he would naturally look at the cattle, and, in doing this, ho would naturally supplement his information by applying to a competent veterinary surgeon. The medical officer would, in all probability, be a man of exceptional scientific knowledge, and he would not have recourse to the ordinary veterinary surgeon to be found in such districts as the hon. and gallant Member for Galway has referred to. An appeal from the medical officer to the ordinary veterinary surgeon would be a foolish and dangerous stop.

Under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act veterinary surgeons, and especially in Ireland, have great experience in the examination of dairies, and I think in Dublin the inspection of dairies is altogether in the hands of veterinary surgeons. I think it is an extremely serious thing to entrust to a Medical Officer of Health the power to stop the sale of milk, not only from a dairy, but from a farm also. Of course the ease stated by my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Nolan) is altogether visionary, and probably the Act would not be in operation in the Union of Tuam. But there will be power in the Bill to call on the local veterinary surgeon, and I should imagine there is a veterinary surgeon there to assist the medical officer. It would be a serious thing to entrust the power to a medical officer, open sometimes to considerations apart from actual knowledge. It would be, I think, a dangerous thing to entrust him with the power of stopping a man's trade. There is no provision for compensation, and a man might be practically ruined by a single individual.

The mode of procedure would probably be this. When any epidemic is thought to be connected with a dairy, a medical man skilled in tracing the causes of an epidemic would, having exhausted all the more common causes of disease apart from the cattle, turn to the cattle, and then nobody has any objection to the intervention of the veterinary surgeon. This is a question of public administration. A locality having determined to adopt this Act, the putting in operation of the machinery for the preservation of health rests with the Medical Officer of Health, and we want to have this machinery put in operation without unnecessary delay or impediment. We have no objection to the veterinary surgeon in the case of disease of animals, but this is a question of human life and health; and if, in the course of investigation, no cause having been discovered, it is suspected that the cattle originate the disease, then the functions of the veterinary surgeon come in, and there is no objection. I hope my hon. Friend will not think it necessary to press the Amendment.

There seems to be an idea that the opinion of the Veterinary Inspector will over-ride that of the medical officer, but that is not so; the latter may pass through the cow-shed and not observe that the disease is in the cattle. This Amendment will be a protection to 'the farmer and also to the public.

My hon. Friend has introduced an Amendment, adding the words "if accompanied by a Veterinary Inspector or some other veterinary surgeon." So the point at issue is not whether the medical officer is to be accompanied, but whether it shall be by a Veterinary Inspector or some other surgeon—

No; the point at issue is whether he shall accompany the medical officer on other occasions, or only when the visit is to inspect the cattle. The question as to whether it shall be the Veterinary Inspector or a casual veterinary surgeon, is a different point to be raised later.

But if the Amendment is carried, surely then it will be made obligatory?

Quite so, but other words might be added.

I should like to know whether the Government approve of allowing the words "any other veterinary surgeon," to stand? My own feeling is in favour of Veterinary Inspector or officer. When the Bill was introduced, it provided that any doctor should make the inspection, but at the instance of the Government, I presume, any doctor was struck out. But now the same thing occurs in regard to veterinary inspection. It seems to me that when a public duty is to be performed it should be entrusted to a public officer. I entirely object to any casual veterinary surgeon being called in, whether qualified or not. I do not know whether it is necessary for a qualified veterinary surgeon to have a diploma, but, at any rate, I think we ought to limit the duties to a public official. I do not know what the view of the Government may be, but that is my impression. I beg, pro forma, to move the omission of the words.

This might lead to lamentable delay in the inspection, for the Veterinary Inspector might be engaged at a distance out of the district. There would be no objection to the addition of the words "approved by the Local Authority."

Something of that kind I should be willing to accept.

Would not the approval of the Local Anthority be equally a cause of delay? Would a general approval be sufficient?

It would be competent for the Local Authority to nominate generally, not specially.

There is danger in allowing the Local Authority to stamp with their approval, or mark with their disapproval, a man engaged in earning an honest livelihood. As a matter of principle, I strongly object to this.

It might bring us to an agreement if we inserted the word qualified" before veterinary surgeon.

Yes, the words "properly qualified" might be inserted.

Why should we not throw upon the Inspector the responsibility of appointing a deputy? It would be easy to avoid delay, by adding the words "appointed by him."

In reference to another Bill the House universally expressed disapproval of one officer being nominated by another.

Is it possible to insert words to allow the Veterinary Inspector to make his Report in cases where he inspects cattle? I think he ought to make a Report on his inspection, and the Local Authority should have his opinion at first hand; it should not be communicated privately to the medical officer. For that purpose, I move to substitute the word "they" for "he" in line 5. I do not know whether the grammar is not a little confused; I have not had time to consider it.

Two Reports, I think, would be objectionable. I think it is sufficient for the Authority to have the medical officer's Report, in the preparation of which he may have had the assistance of the Veterinary Inspector.

It is quite clear the medical officer must be responsible in framing his Report, and must give his opinion as to detriment to health. It would be proper that this should be accompanied by a Report from the Veterinary Inspector, but the duty of framing his Report in reference to health must rest with the medical officer.

That is precisely my view. Will the right hon. Gentleman suggest words to carry that out, and I will withdraw my Amendment? The Report of the Veterinary Inspector might be sent under cover by the medical officer.

To carry out my suggestion, I would propose an addition in line 7, thus—

"He shall report thereon to the Local Authority and his Report shall he accompanied by any Report the Veterinary Inspector may desire to make."

The grammar will then require correction.

That maybe done on Report stage.

I think the wording of my Amendment is rather better than that of the hon. Member's Amendment now before us.

I am quite willing to accept it.

In page 3, line 18, after "respectively," insert—

"An Order made by a Local Authority in pursuance of this section shall he forthwith withdrawn on the Local Authority being satisfied that the milk supply has been changed, or that the cause of the infection has been removed"

I am willing to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member to insert after the word "Authority," the words "or the medical officers on its behalf."

The Local Authority may only meet once a fortnight, and it would not do for the matter to stand over for that time. I, therefore, move the insertion of the words "or the medical officer on its behalf."

I beg to move that the words "on the part of any of his customers" be struck out. They seem vague and unnecessary.

I beg to move the following new Clause:—

"Whenever it shall he certified to the Local Authority by the Medical Officer of Health that it is desirable, with a view to prevent the spread of infectious disease, that they should be furnished with a list of the patients of any medical practitioner, the Local Authority may require such medical practitioner to furnish them with a full and complete list of the names and addresses of the persons such medical practitioner is attending or has attended during the past two months, and such medical practitioner shall furnish such list accordingly, and the Local Authority shall pay to him for every such list the sum of ten shillings."

I think hon. Members will feel that we are dealing only with the fringe of the matter, while my clause addresses itself to the most serious risks of infection. It has not to do with minute causes of possible infection; these can never be wholly excluded while human beings are crowded in towns under the pressure of constant association for employment or other necessities of daily life. Hon. Members must be aware that doctors often come fresh from the sources of infection, where it is abounding and profuse, fresh and in highest vitality, and, notwithstanding, cannot decline attending patients highly susceptible to infection; and I think those who have the requisite knowledge and fortitude would do far better not to send for the doctor. Again, the doctor may be called in suddenly to attend lying-in women, who are highly susceptible to infection. I am bearing in mind, more than anything', the danger of puerpal fever. I might, perhaps, refer to an incident which occurred a short time ago. The superintendent of one of our cemeteries asked me why it was that whenever they had a burial from a lying-in hospital they always had a great number of burials a week or two afterwards. Sensible men cannot be beguiled by what is said about disinfection, because they know that there is nothing settled about what is called disinfection. I myself have experimented for many years with antiseptics, with a view of seeing under what conditions they would check the development or growth of germs, and I may say that everyone who knows anything at all about this subject is aware that the whole question is fraught with great difficulty. We know on the very best authority that analysis of water is almost useless for detecting what is dangerous or otherwise. You may have water which is full of organic matter, "but which, at the same time, may be perfectly innocuous, while, on the other hand, you may have water containing hardly any organic matter, but the little it does contain is likely to produce the most deadly results. Therefore, I say we ought to endeavour to get rid of these pretences, and try to get to the bottom and the truth. Of course, the doctor is, from the necessities of his occupation, in the very midst of whatever infection happens to exist. His hair and his professional black coat are mediums for the conveyance of infection. We know that cloth attracts and retains infection, collecting the deadly particles much in the same way as a cotton-wool filter collects and holds the London "blacks." Well, I ask how do you propose to disinfect the doctor? Certainly he ought to be shaved, because his hair is a sure medium for the conveyance of infection. Moreover, his woollen clothing cannot be disinfected, and if it were washed with alkalies it would soon rot and be destroyed. If we are to shrink from subjecting young and inexperienced, and, therefore, often reckless, men just emerged from the students' condition to wholesome rules and regulations, if we are to make them judges in their own cases instead of enforcing upon them some sort of tangible responsibilty, we practically leave them free to pronounce the verdict on their own proceedings. This is exactly what I wish to prevent. I do not wish to allow these men to cover up everything they do by a certificate of death, and in that way to close the chapter. I say that if the House assents to this measure, without dealing with the question I refer to in some such way as I have proposed, it will be straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. Of course, we all know that great excuses are to be made for the doctors. They are constantly being sent for in crowded districts, where they must attend large numbers of patients suffering from every form of disease. In this way they carry contagion and infection from house to house, but, this being so, I say that we are bound to deal with the matter in a firm and sensible manner. I implore the House not to allow this Bill to pass without some legislation on this point. It is our duty to insist on imposing some sense of responsibility on those who are necessarily vehicles of infection. What the Sanitary Authorities may do when they get this Bill I cannot tell, any more than I can imagine what they will do when they get a list from the dairyman or from the laundry. All this seems to me to be merely intended to enable an interesting Report to be written after all the mischief is done. I want to stop the mischief, and I have no doubt that if the Local Authority possessed the power I propose to confer they would deal effectually with this matter. They certainly could deal with it effectually by requiring medical practitioners attending infectious cases to confine their practice to that class of disorders. That would be a sensible, a humane, and a common sense thing to do. Medical men ought not to be allowed to attend lying-in women and persons suffering from infectious diseases at the same time, but at present we have no means of preventing this. I therefore, with some confidence, commend this clause to the House as one well worthy of its acceptance.

I cannot think that the hon. Gentle- man opposite has moved this clause seriously. There are, doubtless, a certain number of people who dislike the Bill, and this proposal would seen to have been put forward by them as a sort of reductio ad absurdum. I happen to reside in a dairy country, the vale of Berkeley, a very important dairy district, and I have endeavoured to ascertain the views of the dairy farmers in that part of the Kingdom on this subject, and in reply to what has already been said on this point I have to say that I have not heard a single word against the proposals contained in this Bill. On the contrary, all respectable people engaged in dairy farming appear to approve of the measure, and think that the only people it would hit are those who deserve to be hit. But I would ask the hon. Gentleman opposite whether he means seriously to argue that medical men are to go about clean shaved and without any clothes? If so, I recommend him to bring in a Bill to regulate the Medical Profession. That, however, has nothing to do with the Milk Bill, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will not put the House to the trouble of dividing on a proposal which I really cannot look upon as anything but a joke.

I am sorry to say I cannot agree with the hon. Member's proposal.

I have now to move the omission from line 22, page 3, of the word "two," in order to insert the word "four." I hope the hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill will see his way to the acceptance of this proposal; as otherwise, seeing how generally the provisions must affect the poorer members of the community, they must commit' all sorts of offences owing to their remaining in absolute ignorance of these having been created by the Act.

I agree to the hon. Gentleman's Amendment.

I beg, Sir, to move that Clause 4 be omitted.

I must pretest against the omission of this clause. I have no doubt that in assenting to its omission the hon. Gentleman in charge of the -Bill has yielded to a pressure which is absolutely irresistible; but if he feels compelled to throw Jonah overboard in order to save his ship, it occurs to me that Jonah is, in reality, the best part of his cargo, and that if this clause and Clause 6, which I understand is also to be omitted, are both to be withdrawn, the Bill will be rendered practically useless. I should be glad if the hon. Member in charge of the measure would give us some reasons for the withdrawal of these clauses. Last year, on a Bill relating to notification of infectious diseases, it was predicted, as is predicted with regard to this measure, that the difficulties in the way of working the measure will practically render it inoperative; but that measure having been passed, the difficulties predicted with regard to it have altogether disappeared, and I have not the least doubt that if this measure were passed in its present form the objections now urged against it would also disappear. I think I may be allowed to say that I speak with some little authority on this matter, because, as a Member of a Committee dealing with matters of this kind for some years, it is within my knowledge that since the year 1882 something like 30 localities have adopted the provisions dealing with the inspection of milk outside of particular districts, while 19 other localities have adopted those clauses inside the districts. I should have liked to have heard some specific arguments or reasons of a practical nature showing that these provisions have pressed harshly and done harm to the milk trade. I do not desire to say more at the present moment, because I regard what I have already said as something in the nature of a funeral oration on this measure, should, these two clauses be omitted.

Having had some practical experience in regard to the question of milk supply, as furnished from carts perambulating the streets, I may state that a large portion of the milk thus sold is supplied to persons whose names and addresses dairymen know nothing of. To attempt to lay down a rule requiring that these names and addresses should be supplied by the dairymen to the Local Authorities would be to attempt an impossibility.

I think my hon. Friend has done well in proposing to omit this clause which, taking it as a whole, it would be hardly possible to work. An hon. Gentleman opposite has spoken of the omission of this clause as the throwing overboard of Jonah. Doubtless the hon. Member is well versed in scriptural history, and he will therefore remember that the throwing overboard of Jonah was not the end of that individual's career. We are in hopes of being able to insert hereafter some provision that will practically compensate for the omission of this clause.

I should like to add to what has been stated by an hon. Member opposite that not only do the milkmen's customers vary from day to day, but the milk supply itself is of a variable character, which fact alone would furnish a cause of considerable difficulty.

I am quite convinced that in many parts of the Metropolis this clause would be entirely unworkable. In the poorer and more crowded districts the sellers of milk have not the slightest idea of the names or addresses of the persons they supply-Motion made, and Question put, "That Clause 4 be omitted,"—agreed to.

I wish to point out that the Bill will be a much better measure if this clause were retained. If a person having scarlet fever in the house sends articles of linen to a public laundry without having disinfected them the disease may spread like wildfire; whereas if a doctor or Medical Officer of Health has reasonable suspicion that a person having an infectious disease in his family is sending clothes to a particular laundry he would warn the laundry proprietor not to admit them until they had been properly disinfected. Both the public and the laundry proprietor would benefit by this arrangement.

I think it would be much better if this clause were retained. I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ritchie) say that he looked forward to the time when some such provision might be adopted. I do not like this tentative method of proceeding in matters affecting the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, and I must say that I regard it as unworthy of a strong Government. We ought, in regard to these laundries, to have the courage of our convictions; and, for my part, I cannot see that the difficulty of carrying out this clause is nearly as great as that which belongs to the case of the retail milk-dealer. As it is, many a laundry is ruined by the fact that infected clothes are sent to it by some unscrupulous customer. This clause might be amended, so as to prevent that kind of thing to a great extent, by giving the Medical Officer of Health reasonable control over the laundries. In omitting this clause the Government are showing a timidity which, I repeat, is unworthy of them, at any rate from a scientific point of view, however commendable it may appear to them from a political point of view.

I desire merely to say that I gather from my constituents there is very little local opposition to this particular clause, at any rate the opposition to it is certainly not so considerable nor of the same character as that which was directed against Clause 4, which has already been struck out. I trust the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will stick to the clause.

I desire to point out that whatever may have been the reasons which have induced my hon. Friend to consent to the omission of this clause hon. Members opposite are hardly justified in reflecting on the action of the Government. I am glad the hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir W. Foster) is of opinion that the Government is a strong Government; but I can assure him that the course he objects to has nothing to do with the action of the Government.

It is absolutely and entirely a private Member's Bill, and knowing the difficulty of getting a private Member's Bill through the House, and knowing that if I kept Clauses 4 and 6 in my Bill it would delay the measure, I agreed to throw them over.

The hon. Member has evidently not received so many communications as I have; perhaps, because the people touched are feebler persons. The Amendment which I have just put down upon the Paper would lock up the infected place and destroy the infection upon the spot. Infected clothes scrubbed and washed, the water passing through the sewers, all of which are leaky, would spread the infection. The object of my Amendment was to prevent that. I am very glad, however, that the hon. Member has had the wisdom to withdraw the clause.

I hope there will be a Division against the exclusion of this clause, because laundries are on a different footing to dairies. Disease might be propagated from a dairy, and it would take a week before you could ascertain how the disease had originated. It obviously would be the duty of the Authorities, pending the obtaining of the information, to warn the customers of the dairy, and, therefore, the business of the dairy would be injuriously affected. I can quite understand the opposition of the dairy keepers. But the laundry is on an entirely different footing. The list of customers would enable the authorities to trace the disease. Take, for example, the disease of diphtheria. Its discoverer traced the infection to certain sores which had been thought to have nothing to do with diptheria. Let us suppose that the clothes of a person suffering from an almost chronic form of diphtheria go to the laundry, and an outbreak of the disease occurs among the people of the laundry. The medical officers hears of the outbreak, and he goes to the laundry and obtains a list of the customers, and in that way is enabled to focus the infection. Such a course would be for the benefit of the laundry people and of the customers. I hope a Division will be taken against the omission of the clause.

The hon. Member for St. Pancras, living in the centre of London, where there are not many laundries, may not have had so many communications on this subject as have Members representing the suburban districts of London. The person who is to be punished for the spread of disease through infected linen is not the laundryman but the individual who sends it. A laundryman might be absolutely ruined through the ignorance or carelessness of some householder if this clause were adopted. I can tell the House this, that there is great consternation in some of the suburban districts of London with regard to this clause, which, I am perfectly certain, would inflict very serious injury, if not ruin, upon a large number of my constituents. Therefore, I do hope that the House will support my hon. Friend in cutting this clause out of the Bill.

It is desirable to trace the infection to its place of origin, so that punishment may be inflicted and steps taken to prevent its spread. For these reasons I hope the hon. Member will proceed to a Division.

If you carry a clause of this sort it will press heavily upon a number of poor washerwomen, who would be much bothered if they had to supply a list of their customers to the Local Authority. It would have the effect of making this Bill, which is a good Bill, very unpopular indeed. Clause 7 (which it is not intended to withdraw) gives the Local Authority full power to cleanse and disinfect infected articles, and it could be better and more easily done under this supervision. Clause 6, therefore, is unnecessary and grand-motherly in its operation, and would have the effect of creating an agitation against the Bill.

If there be a Division I certainly shall feel it my duty to vote for the retention of the clause, and I would point out that all these provisions are optional. Swansea, Scarborough, Newport, and Stockton, places wholly different from each other, have, last year, adopted this clause in their Local Acts. If the clause is kept in the Bill, it will be wholly within the discretion of the Authorities whether they adopt it or not. If they decide to do so, they can adopt it by the simple process of passing a Resolution, instead of being put to the expense of getting an Act of Parliament. I think the House ought to give the Authorities power to adopt the clause by resolution.

If this clause is passed it will do no good, and will cause the greatest difficulty among laundrymen. The laundrymen are entitled to be protected against the criminal recklessness of those who send them infected clothing, but this clause will not give them any such protection. A man told me only two days ago that he received some wet soiled clothes which he knew at once came from an infected house, and he found on inquiry that there was an infectious disease in the house from which they had come. It was necessary that laundrymen and their workpeople should have protection against reckless or ignorant householders who send infected clothes to the laundry. But this clause would not afford that protection, while it would ruin absolutely a number of laundries. If it be, in the opinion of the Medical Officer, desirable that he should have a list of the customers of some poor unhappy laundryman, he will obtain it as a matter of course. Having obtained this list, the Medical Officer may go round to these customers. He may go to a house, and, the husband being away from home, may see the lady, who may ask him, "To what am I indebted for this visit?" He would answer, "I am Medical Officer for Kensington, and I want to know if you have any infectious disease in your house?" The lady would say, "We have no infectious disease here; if we had we should have notified it in the regular way." And she will ask how the rumour could have been spread about that there being any one there suffering from infectious disease. She would learn that her name and address had been given by her laundryman, when to protect not only her children but also the servants and everyone in the house, she would instantly receive instructions that that laundryman was not to be employed again. I maintain that this proposal would certainly persecute some poor small laundrymen out of existence. The hon. Member for St. Pancras says he has received no communications from laundrymen on this subject. But the reason for that is obvious. Very few of these persons can read, and not one in a hundred knows that this clause is hanging over them. I would entreat the House not to rush blindly into this matter. This clause has never been considered. It was passed a few minutes after 12 o'clock in an empty House, and I would put it to hon. Members whether, at the instigation of the Member for Wigan, they ought to put the laundrymen all over the country to these terrible risks? It is all very well to say that these powers are given in local Acts relating to such places as Cheltenham and Scarborough. We have no control over these Acts. One of them has over 100 clauses, and I would ask if it can be reasonably expected of us that we should wade all through these Acts to find out if there are such proposals as these contained in them? We know that not long ago, in a private Bill, dealing ostensibly with the regulation of a port, there was a clause inserted to forbid processions through the streets, and that the insertion of such a clause in a local Bill of the kind was generally condemned. I submit that the principle under discussion should be resisted in the present instance, and I protest against the fact that it is already recognised in a private Bill, being used as an argument for its recognition in a public measure.

I deprecate the passing of this clause, because, unless it is compulsory and penal, it will be of no use whatever; and if you make it compulsory and penal it will be oppressive and tyrannical. It is not that we do not wish to see everything that is possible done to prevent the spread of infectious disease, but it is because we believe that it would prove embarrassing and irritating, and inflict injury on an industry, that we oppose the clause. What we have to do is to see that the medical officer shall compel parties to refrain from sending infected clothes to public laundries, and if he does his duty he can do that without exercising such tyrannous powers as those proposed upon the conductors of laundries. It would be an enormous tax on the time of the laundryman to have to supply lists of his customers from day to day. I trust that without a great deal more careful consideration and discussion this clause, which, after all, is not to be compulsory, will not be passed.

I would point out that this clause is the same as Clause 31 of the Public Health Acts Amendment Bill, which is down on the Orders for to-day, save that that clause is better and more perfect. I would, therefore, invite the hon. Member in charge of the Bill to withdraw the clause.

This clause applies to London, and the one to which the hon. Member refers in the Public Health Acts Amendment Bill does not.

The hon. Member is mistaken. The clause I refer to is not in that part of the Bill from the application of which the administrative County of London is exempted.

Supposing the hon. Member is right, if this clause is passed the Local Authority may not avail itself of its use. It may take its remedy under the ordinary law.

I now have to move in Clause 9, line 31, after the word "mortuary" to insert the words "or in a room not used at the time as a dwelling-place, a sleeping-place, or a work-room." It will be perfectly obvious to the House that men in the middle or upper classes will not have the slightest difficulty in getting a medical practitioner to give them the necessary certificate, and it seems to me to be very hard that the body of a poor child should be taken to the mortuary while the body of a child of rich parents should be allowed to remain in the parents' house. Have hon. Members any notion of what a mortuary is? I can only say that of all the horrid sights I have ever seen the sight that greets the eye in a mortuary is one of the most terrible. I cannot see why we should make any distinction between rich and poor. It will be very hard for the loving mother to allow the body of her child to go to the mortuary, and all the harder when she knows that her wealthier neighbours can easily avoid such a sacrifice.

I am bound to say I think this clause seems rather too stringent, and might operate in a way my hon. Friend would not wish, especially in the case of the poorer classes. On the whole, I think there ought to be some limitation in the nature of the proposal of the hon. Gentleman. There ought to be a duty imposed on the Local Authority to make persons ac- quainted with the obligations incurred under this Bill. It is clear that they are of an extremely onerous character, and, therefore, some provision should be inserted by which adequate notice is given to householders of the scope of the Bill, so that it may, as far as possible, be carried out without the penalty of a fine.

I think the Amendment should be enlarged, so as to provide that a room so used shall not be contiguous to any room used as a dwelling-place, a sleeping-place, or a working-place. The hon. Member says the Amendment is intended for the relief of the poorer classes; but they are exactly the persons who would not be likely to possess this accommodation. Though it is a very painful thing to send a dead relative to the mortuary, yet I do hope we shall never consent to have burials immediately after death, or what appears to be death, because we know that in Paris there have been many terrible occurrences, especially in cases of infectious disease, in consequence of the system of rapid burial.

I thank my right hon. Friend (Mr. Ritchie) for his speech, and will withdraw the Amendment. In the interests of the poor I do hope he will not lose sight of the promise he has made.

With reference to Clause 14, I am afraid many poor people will commit offences under the Act without knowing it. In this clause a popular word of doubtful meaning is introduced. We know what infectious matter is; but we do not know what infectious "rubbish" is. In the Bill of the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. F. S. Powell) there was a clause about offensive matter, and I should be glad to know why that clause has been abandoned. I formally move the omission of this clause.

I think the hon. Member's point about "rubbish" is rather a small one. It is not I but the Committee who are responsible for the word.

As to the clause which formerly stood in my Bill, it was struck out after the consideration of this Bill in Committee, in order to avoid having the same provision in two Bills, and for no other reason.

I would ask the hon. Member in charge of the Bill whether he cannot provide that this infectious matter or rubbish should be burned. There is nothing certain about the process of disinfection as now performed.

I move to omit the word "rubbish" and to insert the word "matter." "Rubbish" is a word unknown to the law, and I would point out, also, that if it is previously disinfected it is not infectious rubbish. I think the best course would be to drop the clause altogether. At all events, it might be put into a proper and legal shape.

I may point out that this is not by any means a new word in an Act of Parliament. In the Stockton-on-Tees Extension Bill, passed last Session, this very expression "infectious rubbish" occurs.

In any Bill of this kind it is very desirable that we should insist on the most perfect way of destroying infectious matter, and if some further provision can be made to this effect it will add greatly to the value of the Bill. We want the public to learn that the best way to get rid of infectious matter is to destroy it thoroughly by fire. If we insert such a provision we shall add vastly to the value of the Bill.

I hope the House will now allow the Bill to be read a third time.

In the absence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), I beg to move the first Amendment standing in his name. That Amendment is to leave out from "time," in line 14, page 1, to "shall," in line 15. The result of the Amendment would be to leave out the words "and every person who has authorised or is responsible for the issue of the prospectus or notice." The House will observe that the clause proposes that where a prospectus or notice inviting persons to subscribe shares and so forth is issued, every person who is a director of the company at the time of the issue of the prospectus or notice, and every person named in the prospectus or notice, who has ever agreed to become a director, is liable for any loss occasioned by a misstatement. Further on the clause proposes to extend that liability to every person who has, however indirectly, authorised or made himself responsible for the issue of the prospectus. These words go far beyond the earlier part of the clause, and far beyond what I submit to the House is in accordance with sound principle. It may be that a director who undertakes to issue, or to make himself responsible, for a prospectus inviting subscriptions to shares, or debentures, or debenture stock should be liable for any mis-statement in the prospectus, but to say that every person who authorises the issue of such a prospectus should be liable seems to throw the net too wide. I can conceive many cases in which persons who have authorised the issue of a prospectus may not be in any way legally or morally responsible for the statements contained in it. There are bankers in the City of London who sometimes allow instalments of share moneys—payments on application or allotment—to be made to them on behalf of a company. It may be said they authorise the issue of the pros- pectus, and I think no one will venture to say that either morally or legally they ought to be made responsible for the truth of the statements contained in the prospectus.

I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment; indeed, I did not understand, from communication I had with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, that this Amendment was not to be proposed. Again, this matter was discussed before the Committee on Trade, and it was considered by that Committee that these words ought to be maintained. There are many cases which come before the Courts in which the person who is really responsible for a prospectus is neither a Director nor an officer of the company at all. Why should not a man be liable for that for which he is responsible? These words were inserted and retained by the Committee to meet the case of persons who, not being Directors or officers of the company, are yet responsible for the issue of a prospectus, and, in consequence, responsible also for the statements therein contained.

I hope these words will be retained. They were very well discussed by the Committee upstairs, and I do not think the instance of a banker who receives subscriptions or instalments will apply. If, however, a banker issued a prospectus it is desirable that he should be liable.

I submit there is a great deal of difference between the words "authorised or" and "being responsible for" Almost every company which is formed in London or elsewhere has shares received by some banker, who, therefore, might be said to have authorised the issue of the prospectus. I think it would be a great injustice that any doubt should be allowed to remain on this point. My hon. and learned Friend has argued that if we confine it to Directors we may allow those who are really responsible to escape altogether. This is not merely a question of Directors. There are medical officers and others whose names cannot appear on a prospectus without authorisation. In this matter we are imposing a great penalty, and, therefore, we ought to be clear in the language we use. If we leave in the words "is responsible for the issue of the prospectus," we should really meet the whole case. There would be no reason then for throwing great responsibilities on persons who clearly ought not to be liable. I would suggest to the hon. and learned Member for Stockton that he should withdraw his Amendment, and move to leave out the words "authorised or."

I think the words had better stand as they are. I received only this morning a prospectus strongly urging me to take shares in a company. The person who issued that prospectus would not be responsible at all if these words were left out. I do not say these are the best words, but the clause can be re-cast elsewhere.

As a layman I should not like to express an opinion as to whether the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London is objectionable or not. Possibly the words "responsible or" might cover and include authorisation. Clearly, the case the right hon. Baronet quoted is not applicable. He spoke of a medical officer whose name appears on a prospectus. I imagine that a medical officer who is consulted cannot be considered to authorise the issue of the prospectus. But I object altogether to whittling away the purpose of this Bill. The truth is, it does not satisfy public opinion; it does not go far enough in protecting the public in these days where there is a very large promotion of joint stock enterprise.

Suppose the Directors of a company called a meeting of shareholders and asked for authority to issue Debenture Stock, and the shareholders gave authority, being ignorant of the real facts which alone were in the possession of the Directors, would the shareholders be responsible for any mis-statement? If so, that would be exceedingly hard. I do not think anybody wishes to make each individual shareholder, who is not responsible in one case out of a thousand, responsible for the action of the Directors.

Perhaps the House will allow mo to withdraw the Amendment, and move, as suggested by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London, to leave out the words "authorised or."

I am bound to say I think the words "authorised or" are important, and ought to be retained. The words cover the main number of cases. They cover the cases where persons who are dealing with the prospectus of a company have given authority. I certainly do not think they include the cases of bankers to a company or medical officers. If a banker is a promoter, and has authorised the issue of the prospectus, I think the right hon. Baronet will admit he ought to be open to some liability. I suggest that the words had better stand. As to the point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for King's County (Mr. Molloy), it will be seen that by a later clause the shareholders will have a defence.

It appears to me that the words my hon. and learned Friend proposes to omit are the most valuable words in the clause. I fail to understand why any person should not answer for the words of a prospectus he has issued. The purpose of the Bill is to prevent constant swindles being perpetrated upon the public by promoters issuing documents upon which their names do not appear, and as regards which it is not easy to say who is and who is not in law responsible. If a man does it thoughtlessly, then the blame should attach to him for his want of care. I should like to see erected that standard on the subject which is contemplated in the Bill, that whosoever thinks proper to be a party to the issue of a prospectus should be made answerable for the statements in this prospectus. He may refrain from taking part in the issue, or he must take ordinary pains to see that what is contained in the statement is true.

It seems to me that the effect of the words might be to inflict great hardship upon bankers. Promoters bring out a prospectus and the banker authorises the use of his name, but he does not, and cannot, know anything of the truth of statements contained in the prospectus; he simply relying upon the respectability of a customer authorises the use of his name as banker; but with all deference to high legal authority, I think these words being left in the Bill might be interpreted as making the banker distinctly liable for statements in the prospectus of which he could know nothing.

These words were carefully considered in the Grand Committee, and I think it is obvious if you read the clause that each person is responsible for what he says or does on his own authority. The particular persons who authorise the issue of the prospectus are responsible, but the banker does not authorise it. All that the banker does is to undertake to perform the banking business for the company, and he is only responsible for allowing his name to appear on the prospectus as banker. I cannot see how any man can be injured in his banking capacity; he can only be affected if, in a directorial capacity, he authorises an improper prospectus. I stated upstairs, and I now repeat, we do not wish in any way to prevent legitimate employment of capital through the means of Joint Stock Companies; what we want is to prevent the illegitimate operations which do so much harm to legitimate enterprise. For this reason I support the retention of the words.

The name of the banker on the prospectus is merely an intimation that the account is kept at that bank, and all that the banker has to do is to satisfy himself that those who open the account are respectable people. There is much in the remarks of the lion, and learned Member for Dumfries with which I agree; but my fear is, that the effect of the Bill will be such that respectable men will be so alarmed at the possibilities that they will cease to lend their assistance as Directors, and the direction will be left in the hands of the unscrupulous.

The statements in regard to bankers not being responsible are satisfactory enough, but the Courts are in no way guided by what takes place in discussions in this House. As a matter of fact, bankers do authorise the issue of a prospectus on which their names appear; but the banker does not bring out the company, and he cannot be responsible for the statements in the prospectus. Yet I cannot help thinking that, taking the words in the common acceptation, anyone who has consented to act as banker might be said to have authorised and may be held responsible for the prospectus. I should like to ask my legal friends what is the distinction in meaning between the words "authorised or" and "responsible for"? We are all agreed that liability-should rest where the responsibility is, and surely that covers the whole case. Whom do we touch by the use of the word "authorise"? We do not want to make the banker responsible for the prospectus when he simply acts for the company in the ordinary way of business. But I cannot help fearing that the Courts might interpret the Act as meaning the banker, because it might be asked why a distinction should be made between a "person who has authorised" and a "person responsible" for the prospectus? I cannot help thinking that to carry out the object in view it would be wiser and safer to omit the words.

I really think the apprehension of bankers is unfounded. I cannot understand how the name of a banker appearing on the prospectus can make him responsible for the statements in the prospectus. Nor can I see how any Court can say the shareholders are liable for the consequences of an issue of stock, it is the duty of Directors to issue the prospectus, and to that duty attaches the responsibility for the statements they publish.

I am not a lawyer; but it seems to me that the banker is not free from risk, although he only authorises the use of his name on the prospectus. But it is not an uncommon thing for bankers to assist the circulation of a prospectus, and so a banker might be held liable for the issue to a customer.

The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General has spoken of the liability of shareholders, but whatever we may think on the subject has not the slightest importance in a Court of Law. If you look to Chancery decisions under another Act you will find that responsibility does attach to shareholders; and I apprehend that if a meeting of shareholders is called for the specific purpose of authorising the issue of a notice for the increase of stock, they are the authority for the issue. The Attorney General says the following clauses cover the point, but I have gone through the subsections and do not find where this is done. I do not want to press the matter, but I should be glad to know where it is that the action of shareholders is protected. It is easy to say that it is a legal opinion, but we have distinguished legal authorities taking opposite views. It is clear it is not the intention of the promoters of the Bill that shareholders shall be liable for the penalties, but it is also equally clear that if shareholders are called together for a specific purpose, and give authority to the Directors or somebody on their behalf, a secretary or accountant—then, in the terms of the Bill, they give authority for the issue of the notice. We are all agreed that is not the intention of the Bill, but why cannot some words be introduced to remove all doubt? I have very little faith in the uniformity of decisions of the Courts; they seem to me to differ as much as anything in this world can. To avoid these conflicting decisions I would suggest that some words might be added to clear up all doubts and prevent that which it is not intended by the promoters of this Bill should happen.

If there be any distinction between the words "giving authority for the issue of a prospectus" and "being responsible for the issue," then I have no hesitation in expressing my opinion that the man who has given authority for the issue should not be liable to action. If the words "person authorised" add nothing to the intention, then they should not be inserted. I have listened with respect, as I always do, to everything that comes from the Attorney General and my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Reid), but I cannot bring myself to agree in their opinion altogether. I am not prepared to say that a banker who has authorised the use of his name in some such manner as this—"such and such a bank is authorised to receive subscriptions for so many shares in such and such a company"—would not be held to have authorised the issue of the prospectus within the meaning of the clause. There may be danger of this, and I cannot conceive that it is the meaning or intention of the House that a banker in that position should be liable to an action for damages. Again, I do not think that any sufficient answer has been given to my hon. Friend below the Gangway, when he pointed out that shareholders authorise the action of Directors in issuing stock, and these shareholders might—I do not wish to go further — be held liable for damages under the clause. I can find nothing in the subsequent subsections which would relieve shareholders from that liability. It is clear that the words may hereafter have a meaning attached to them which is not the meaning and intention of the House, and I feel it my duty to go to a Division on the Amendment.

I think the words are most important, and that the words "has authorised" are better than "is responsible for." Really in these matters we are bound to give the Courts the credit of the exercise of common-sense. It is clear that the banker who places his name on a prospectus does so as indicating that he, in his ordinary way of business, receives money on account of the company. He does not issue the prospectus, nor do the persons to whom the prospectus is sent accept the statements therein as the statements of the banker.

The solicitor's name appears on the prospectus equally with the banker's name, and it is not feared that the solicitor will be liable. If it were otherwise, that body would be soon up in arms, as the solicitors must be in a worse position than the bankers, seeing that unlike the latter, they would have distinct knowledge of the statements in the prospectus, and necessarily so, as in many cases the solicitors actually draft them. The meaning is clear, I think; and I hope the words will not be omitted, for it may be that authority can be proved where responsibility cannot be proved.

The words have a meaning of some kind, or they should not be inserted, and it is the duty of Parliament to supply the common-sense, not to trust to the Courts finding it out. There is a section in the Companies Act of 1867, as to which it has been said over and over again in a tone of pain by the Judges, that they can make neither head or tail of the meaning of the Legislature. It is a disputed question whether a promoter should have to declare his marriage settlement. Lord Bramwell on the last important case declined altogether the task of discovering the common-sense of the section. He declared that if Parliament did not make its meaning clear it was no business of his, and it would lead to confusion to attempt to bring out what the Legislature ought to have said. Owing to the loose drafting, the result is that nobody, not even the Judges, have anything like a clear knowledge of the law. What the meaning and distinction may be between "authorised" and "responsible for," I do not know, and I decline to rely on conjecture, and so I shall give my vote for the Amendment.

Will the Attorney General indicate the words which afford protection to shareholders?

The arguments which have been used have not altered the opinion I have already expressed. The words I referred to are to be found in the subsection which exempts from liability where there is reasonable ground for believing that the statements are true upon such examination as may be reasonably required. It is no part of the duty of shareholders to make themselves responsible for the language the Directors may use.

Perhaps there would be a solution of the difficulty in a clause exempting from liability any person who authorises his name to appear as banker.

High-sounding names upon a prospectus, as well as the statements therein, are held up as inducements to subscribers. It is against this the Bill seeks to guard the public, and I think it is undesirable to contract the security which the Bill now provides by limiting the liability.

Authorisation by shareholders is often very minute, and it is no uncommon thing for the actual words of a prospectus to be read to, and accepted by, the shareholders, so that they might be held responsible for every detail.

Even where this does not occur, and in the course of a long experience I do not remember such an instance; it seems to me that the directors act as agents and representatives of the shareholders, and they may have no authority except such as is directly conferred by the shareholders. The shareholders, then, may be held to be the authority, and they can only get out of the liability by examining, for the purpose of verification, all the statements of the directors. Apart from this objection, the words are meaningless, or have a meaning one cannot find out.

To strike out the words would, it seems to me, take away responsibility from those who derive immediate and large advantage from the floating of a company, and fix it upon the unfortunate directors, who receive nothing but a very small and, more or less, remote advantage. If a banker or a solicitor joins in authorising a prospectus, why should he escape all responsibility, he having been largely remunerated, while the directors may not have been remunerated at all for their work? Nothing is more common than for directors to work on for months without any remuneration, while banker, solicitor, and others receive immediate advantage from what they do. The Amendment would, it seems to me, relieve from responsibility those who receive the largest advantage from the transaction.

The next Amendment raises a matter of considerable importance. I observed when the matter was before the Grand Committee upstairs that a man ought not to be made liable for an inaccurate or misleading statement, as it is indefinite.

Before that question is discussed I have an Amendment to line 17, to which I think there is no objection. I beg to propose it.

I think it is doubtful whether it is desirable to insert these words. Hon. Members must know that there have been cases in which persons have taken shares because some broker or some one else recommended them to do so, and not because of the contents of the prospectus. Why should the directors be made liable in such a case as that? I believe that if the Amendment is carried, a vast number of directors will be able to evade their responsibility through the inability of people to swear that they absolutely took the shares on the faith of the prospectus.

I remember a case in which a public company was issued with a subscribed capital of £1,000,000. The solicitor told me that only one shareholder had taken the trouble to go to his office to read over the prospectus and ascertain what the merits of the company were, and that gentleman, after reading the prospectus, said he would have nothing more to do with the matter. In a few months the company went into liquidation, and the shareholders lost their money. I think that this Amendment will protect the public. If the House only knew how many millions of money are lost through bogus companies, foisted on the country, owing to the specious statements contained in the prospectuses, it would see the value of this Bill. A company was attempted to be foisted on the public the other day; it was a gold company, but when the matter was carefully looked into, instead of the mine being rich in gold, it was proved that it was the very reverse, and scarcely any gold had ever been taken from it.

I think the words ought to be inserted, otherwise this will be the result—that persons who never have seen the prospectus will, on observing that a man who did subscribe on the faith of the prospectus has successfully brought an action, immediately go into Court, although they did not in the least rely on the prospectus.

Under the Bill no person will be able to recover any damage except that which is attributed to the statements in the prospectus. Question put, and agreed to.

I now move the next Amendment standing in my name. The words I propose to strike out are, in my opinion, too indefinite, and not sufficiently precise.

I am willing to strike out the word "inaccurate" and substitute for it "untrue." "Misleading," however, covers ground which ought to be retained. There are many cases in which a prospectus is misleading by reason of what it does not say, but of what it does suggest. I think that the suppressio veri is as dangerous as the bare statement of that which is false. If the Amendment is limited, as I suggest, I shall be willing to accept it.

I will then divide the Amendment into two parts.

I now move to omit the words "or misleading." There are many statements which might be misleading to an unintelligent person, but which to an ordinary mind are by no means misleading. Something is required to qualify the word "misleading." If it is to be retained at all, it should be provided, for instance, that the statement complained of was materially misleading. I think, however, these words may well be omitted. If a statement is misleading in the sense that it is untrue, then that is provided for in the Bill by the word untrue which we have just inserted.

This matter was very fully discussed in Grand Committee. In my opinion more harm is done by suppressi veri than by suggestio falsi, and I am afraid in these matters we must have regard not merely to the persons of superior intelligence, but also the persons of inferior intelli- gence, who are most likely to be entrapped by a prospectus that does not tell the whole truth. I hope the Committee will retain the word.

I think that the word "misleading" has one grave defect—namely, that it does not describe a quality in the statement itself at all, but describes something about the man who made it. I shall vote for the exclusion of this dangerous word.

The words appear to me to be absolutely necessary, and I shall vote for their retention. I take it that, in deciding whether a statement was misleading, the question would be, not whether it misled the individual plaintiff but whether it was such as to mislead an average mind. I, therefore, disagree with the hon. Member who last spoke.

"Misleading" is a vague word; the full meaning of it the House itself does not grasp. Speaking for myself I am absolutely unable to say what would be the meaning attached to the word by a Court of Law. Is it intended to mean "misleading in fact," or only "calculated to mislead?" It is a subjective word, having reference not to the person who uses certain language, but to the person to whom the language is addressed. This word is not required in order to meet the case of suppressio veri, for it has been decided in more than one case by the House of Lords that statements, though literally true, are in fact untrue, owing to their not conveying the whole truth. I suppose if the Government are in favour of these words they will be retained, but I warn the House that if the House retains this vague word it will be the cause of increased litigation.

I would appeal to the Government to allow this question to be determined on argument and reasoning by the votes of those who are qualified to give a decision by having heard the discussion. In the last Division the Government Whips sent into the "Aye" Lobby Members who had not heard the question argued, and I appeal to the Government not to pursue that course now, but to allow the question to be decided by those who have heard the arguments. I am a strong supporter of the Government, but I do not think it is necessary I should give them support in a matter of this kind.

We have a definition of the expression "untruestatement," upon high authority, that it covers mis-statements of fact and omissions of material fact that convey a false impression. Every lawyer in the House knows that all our Courts of Law act on that definition. If the word misleading is added, the Courts, in construing the section, will attach some meaning to it, other than the meaning untrue. The hon. Member for Northampton speaks of the "average mind," but what is the average mind? As represented on the Jury and among the witnesses, it might be partly in one direction and partly in the other. Some witnesses would say they were not misled by a statement, while others would declare they were, and the latter would, however stupid, justify a verdict. The uncertainty of the words would, I am sure, lead to an enormous amount of litigation, and be of detriment to joint stock enterprise, by which so large a part of our mercantile and industrial business is now conducted.

We had this point under discussion in Committee, and the opinion I there expressed was that penalties enforced in Criminal Courts should be only for criminal actions. A man may with a perfectly honest intention put his name to a prospectus, in which a statement appears by which some individuals may be misled. I think the word "misleading," if unqualified, is too wide, but I would not object to directors being made responsible for anything that is intentionally misleading."

In reference to what has been said by my hon. Friend (Mr. Gedge) it will be observed that the House has only confirmed the opinion of the Committee, and in the Division I am not aware that any pressure was used by the Government to bring this about. As to the point before us, I do not think it is necessary to consider whether it is a "subjective" or "objective" case; my own opinion is that it refers to the statement, not to the person. I think the law with regard to directors' responsibility requires strengthening. Nine out of ten misleading statements in prospectuses will, no doubt, be cases of suppressio veri, and while I quite agree with the hon. Member for Stockton as to the decisions of the House of Lords as to the meaning of the word "untrue," that word will not cover all cases of suppyressio veri. The word "untrue" will merely make directors consider whether what is stated is true, without any consideration of whether all that ought to be stated is stated. I do not think that the retention of this word will impose on directors any additional responsibility that they ought not to bear.

The question is, Does the House want to strengthen the law or not? If this word is struck out, and only false statements are touched, there is no reason for amending the law. Our object is to get at the men who, either carelessly or knowingly, allow their names to be put to misleading statements. There area number of gentlemen of rank and title who lend their names to companies, in the City of London, and pocket the fees as directors, without rally attending to the business of the undertakings with which they are connected, and it is desirable to make these guinea-pig directors responsible for statements which appear over their names. I hope the House will not be led away by tenderness for this class of financiers. The public expect protection from transactions that really amount to fraud. I hope the word "misleading" will be retained.

I would ask the House to consider the question whether, in the attempt to strike at one evil by the use of this word, they will not be inflicting a still greater evil. Suppose promoters sitting round a table, and considering the terms of a prospectus. It is quite possible for them to exhaust every means to ascertain if the statements set out are true, and the clause imposes upon them the obligation of testing the truth of each statement. But how can any man undertake that any particular statement shall not mislead anybody who reads it? In the attempt to defend the community against one evil you are about to inflict a vastly greater evil. I cannot imagine how any joint stock enterprise can proceed if the private fortune of every director is to be at stake in the event of some statement he could never know would be misleading being long years afterwards judged to be misleading. I do not think that is what the House intends. If you can find words to bring punishment home to men who make statements intentionally or recklessly misleading that will be justifiable. We none of us have any sympathy with the man who recklessly puts misleading statements before the public for his own advantage, but with a provision like this I think we may say good-by to legitimate joint stock enterprise.

There is force in what the hon. Member for Cardiff urges, but we must consider this clause in connection with Sub-sections A and B, and then I think it will be found that the standard is not at all too high, and the measure of responsibility to the directors not too great. Subsections A and B have so watered down, so diluted the responsibility that the Bill, if amended in the direction indicated, would be worth very little indeed. After all, what is the liability attaching to a director in regard to untrue or misleading statements? It is not very onerous, for if hon. Members will refer to the subsections I have mentioned they will see that he escapes liability for a misleading or untrue statement if he can show that he made reasonable examination and inquiry into the statement, and had reasonable ground for believing, and did believe, that the statement was true. If the statement is made on the authority of an expert, he has simply to show that it was a correct copy or extract of the Report of the expert. So, after all, the responsibility and liability of the director is very small, and if the word "misleading" is left out, that will so further dilute the Bill that there will be little strengthening of the law in it. I would urge the House to accept the words as they stand. The question was thoroughly thrashed out in Committee, and the conclusion arrived at was that the word was necessary.

I do not think the word "untrue" would cover all cases of suppressio veri. I would engage to write out a most enticing prospectus, with not a single word of untruth in it, and yet which, by its omissions, would give an utterly false impression of the actual state of facts to the person asked to take shares. For instance, suppose I want persons to take shares in a mine. A prospectus is issued, and a description is given. It is easy to put forward the opinion of an expert that there in an immense quantity of metal in the mine, and I may say nothing more. But it may be the mine is situated in a country where fever prevails to such an extent that you cannot get people to work the mine, or means of transit may be wanting, and cost of carriage immense, or to obtain labour may be impossible, except at un-remunerative rates, or the mine may be full of water, or there may be many other reasons why it cannot pay for the working. But all this would not be covered by the word "untrue," and these suppressio veri will remain untouched unless you retain the word "misleading," and the honest director is fully protected by the proviso.

I hope the House will accept the Amendment on the authority of the hon. and learned Member for Stockport, who has indicated the dangers that may arise in continuing the clause by the Courts. I do not understand the Attorney General to defend the words; he only said the word "untrue" required strengthening.

I beg to move, in Clause 3, line 19, to leave out "or in any Report or Memorandum incorporated therewith or referred to therein." The House will observe that these words make directors and other persons responsible for issuing in a prospectus not merely what they may say themselves, but anything said by anyone else in a Memorandum to any part of which they have referred. In making people liable for penal consequences it is important that you should confine yourself to that which they have done themselves and not that which has been done by other people. Surely we are straining the matter too far to say that persons issuing a prospectus shall be responsible for the whole of any document which is referred to therein. No doubt the law should be made stringent, but you should be careful, in doing that, not to overshoot the mark, and not to go beyond what you intend. I would ask the lion. Member in charge of the Bill what he thinks he will gain by including these words. No doubt it is desirable that in a prospectus as much information as possible should be conveyed, but if you issue words as vague as these, the statements in prospectuses will be confined within the narrowest limits, lest in referring to a Memorandum or document prepared by someone else, and giving valuable information, they might be made liable for statements not contained in the part referred to.

I desire to support the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London, because it seems to me clear that if a Report or Memorandum is incorporated in a prospectus it is in the prospectus, and because a Report or Memorandum might even be referred to in terms of condemnation.

I hope the Grand Committee will be supported in this matter. It was mentioned to the Committee, and not contradicted, that the Reports and Memorandums referred to in the prospectuses are often the most misleading of the documents issued. It should be remembered that a director will only be responsible for statements either false to his own knowledge, or which he could, by the exercise of ordinary care, have discovered to be false.

I would point out that if a delegate is sent to a distant country to report on a variety of subjects, and if, on his return, the Directors of a company with whom he is not associated are to refer in their prospectus to any part of his Report, they will be hold responsible for any misstatements in the rest of that document. That, surely, is going too far.

I would remind the hon. Gentleman that he has overlooked the effect of Sub-section B, which makes an important distinction between statements in prospectuses and statements in Reports. For the accuracy of a statement in a prospectus a Director is responsible, but for a statement in a Report he is not responsible. He is responsible for seeing that the Report of Valuation is made by the person whose name it bears, and that there is reasonable ground for believing, not that the statements are true, but that the Report has been made in good faith, and that the person making it was competent to do so.

There is a large protection in those words, and, under the circumstances, I will not press my argument. I am not like some hon. and learned Members—so expert in dealing with Acts of Parliament as to be able to say a thing in one line and unsay it in another.

I am aware of the words referred to, but they deal with statements made in the prospectus. My Amendment deals with statements not made in the prospectus, but contained in a document only referred to in it.

I am surprised to hear the right hon. Baronet supporting the Amendment by this argument. It is clear it is bad to circulate statements in a paper circulated with, though not part of that prospectus. The clause must remain as it stands, unless you wish to make it valueless.

Many matters may be referred to in a prospectus which really are not part of the prospectus but yet impart valuable information. You would make a Director liable to penalties if any statement of this kind should be unintentionally misleading.

I have never heard of statements that ought to be in the body of a prospectus being put into a Report or Memorandum. Of course, where that takes place such statements should be treated as having been made by the person who issues the prospectus. I again say that the Courts are strong enough to deal with such cases. They would deal with Reports and Memoranda of this kind exactly on the same footing as the body of the prospectus. I think, however, that this argument is misleading, for a Report or other document may be referred to in a prospectus without being incorporated therein, and for that reference a Director would be liable, if there were any inaccuracy in the document. I am told that this proviso would protect the Director, but that only refers to the Valuation Reports of the experts. Documents may be referred to that are neither Reports nor valuations by experts, and in reference to these it is necessary that protection should be given. Sub-section "A" refers to any incorrect or misleading statement of fact not purporting to be made on authority. Is it intended that if a statement is made by somebody else, and merely referred to in the prospectus issued by me, I am to be liable if the statement is untrue?

It is a very common thing to send out with a prospectus papers or Reports which are intended to contain information, but which are not actually part of the prospectus itself. It seems to me that no harm could be done by leaving these words in the clause. Supposing Reports or Memoranda referred to in the prospectus to contain statements of fact, we think that the person held responsible for them ought to make the same inquiry with regard to them as with regard to the prospectus itself.

If the Government will consider the point, I shall be willing to withdraw the Amendment.

The Committee considered this point carefully, and came to the conclusion that these words should remain in.

The clause must run on all fours: in the previous part the words are "untrue or misleading statements," without the words "of fact." Therefore, if you insert those words in the latter part, there will be nothing to which the word "such" will refer, and the clause will be hardly grammatical.

I think the clause had better remain as it is.

I beg to move that this Debate be now adjourned. It is impossible to complete the discussion in the time at our disposal.

The lion. Member has spoken already, and therefore cannot make that Motion.

I beg to move the adjournment of the Debate.

It is adjourned by the clock.