My Lords, the excessive increase in both our national and municipal expenditure is a serious menace to the prosperity of the country, and, if continued, must inevitably lead to disastrous results. Our national expenditure in twenty years has risen from £90,000,000 to £121,000,000, an increase of £31,000,000, and, if your Lordships pass the Old-Age Pension Bill, will receive another huge addition, and our municipal expenditure has gone up from £54,000,000 in 1886–87 to £139,000,000, an increase of no less than £84,600,000. So far as municipal expenditure is concerned, the rise may be considered as due, firstly, to the desire for healthier and happier conditions, and of this increase no one complains. It is, however, felt that there has also been much unnecessary and wasteful expenditure owing mainly to two causes. No doubt there are others. The rapid changes in the mayoralty are not conducive to economy. They were comparatively immaterial before the days of municipal trading. But now that so many municipalities carry on great businesses these changes are most unwise In Germany the burgomasters are appointed for a term of years, which is a much wiser system. The two main cause of extravagance are however, probably first, that many of the electors pay no rates. The extravagance and waste have been greatest where this is the case It appears from the London County Council Returns that in Poplar no less than 80 per cent, of the voters are compound householders, who have votes but do not directly pay rates. In West Ham, where also the rates are exception ally high—they amounted last year to 9s. 8d. in the pound—it is significant that out of some 48,000 hereditaments there are over 34,000 compounded. In London as a whole over one-third of the voters are of this character. I need not, however, enlarge on this, because the evil was clearly pointed out by Lord Onslow, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and other Lords in a recent discussion. Moreover, not only is it the case that a large percentage of voters pay no rates, but a large proportion of the rates are paid by those who have no votes. When the money is spent by one set of people and paid by another, no wonder there is extravagance. The present Bill is intended to mitigate, in some measure, this latter evil. Resolutions in support of the principle have been passed by the London Chamber of Commerce, the Associated Chambers of Commerce, and the Industrial Freedom League. The Bill has been drafted by the Institute of Directors, and, as your Lordships will see by the Memorandum, it is supported by over 1,500 commercial undertakings in all parts of the country. In fact, it has the general support of the commercial community. It is based on the axiom that representation should go with taxation. In Leeds no less than 26 per cent, of the rates are paid by companies which have no vote; in Sheffield 30 per cent., in Birmingham 28 per cent, in Manchester 32 per cent., in Liverpool 32·4 per cent., and in the City of London 50 per cent. I do not think I need occupy your Lordships' time by enlarging on the injustice and danger of such, a state of things. Moreover, there is a tendency for this proportion to increase. I trust, therefore, I shall have satisfied your Lordships that there is a strong and almost unanimous feeling on the part of those interested in the joint stock enterprise of this country that in asking for the favourable consideration of this Bill they are only pleading for bare justice. Now what is the view of the municipalities? At a meeting of the London County Council on 4th February, 1908, the following resolution, on the motion of Mr. Pilditch, seconded by Mr. Felix Cassell, K.C., was carried by a large majority—

"That it be an instruction to the Local Government Records, and Museums Committee to report as to the prevalence of conditions under which large sections of ratepayers paying rates to considerable amounts are without representation on the various administrative and spending authorities in London, viz., The London County Council, the Metropolitan Borough Councils, and the Boards of Guardians, and are rendered ineligible to sit as members of certain of such bodies, and as to the possibility and best method, of redressing such anomalies."

At a meeting of the Court of Common Council, on 27th February, 1908, Mr. Bowles, the Chairman of the County Purposes Committee, said that—

"It had been arranged to invite representatives of the London County Council, Stock Exchange, and London Chamber of Commerce to attend with a deputation before the President of the Local Government Board, before whom the whole case in favour of voting on behalf of limited liability companies would be laid."

At the autumnal meeting of the Association of Municipal Corporations, in October, 1904, the Town Clerk of Longton called attention to the following resolution passed by the council on 27th November, 1902—

"That this Council, having regard to the expression of opinion on the part of municipal corporations and other bodies, to the effect that it is just and expedient that the principle of permitting ratepaying companies and incorporated bodies to exercise the right of voting at municipal elections, should be recognised and given effect to by the Legislature."

He referred to the large number of private trading concerns converted into limited companies. These concerns had to contribute to the rates as before, while they had no representation. It was also robbing the local councils of able men. The Town Clerk of Barrow-in-Furness seconded the Motion, which was carried. I hope we shall receive the support of His Majesty's Government. Lord Wolverhampton, in a recent speech said that—

"He agreed on one point with what had been said by the chairmen of railway and other great public companies with regard to this matter, and that was that taxation and representation should go together. He believed that last year the large railway companies of the country contributed to local rates upwards of £3,000,000, and yet they had no representation on the local boards. There should be no difficulty in devising some means for that purpose."

This measure is in the true sense thoroughly democratic, and similar provisions have been adopted in many of our Colonies, as, for instance, in Cape Colony, Western Australia, Queensland, Victoria, Newfoundland, and perhaps others. Lastly, I come to the question whether the Bill will be beneficial. No doubt, a single vote is very little for a great company. But then, perhaps, we shall be told that this Bill can do no good; that giving the vote to a few companies will effect nothing. Of course, we feel that to give a single vote in any local election to a great institution such as the North-Western Railway, or the Gas, Light, and Coke Company is no adequate recognition of the justice to which they are entitled. Still it is something. Then, again, the number of companies is considerable, and is on the increase. Moreover, the effect can-not be measured by the mere number of votes. The actual votes which would be given by this Bill would scarcely ever determine an election. In some constituencies, however, there is a substantial number of companies, and the vote would not be altogether negligible. But votes must be weighed as well as counted; the effect would not depend on the mere number of votes. At present the companies have no locus standi at elections; if their representative attends a meeting of electors he may be asked if he is an elector, and, not being so, is placed at a great disadvantage even if he is heard at all. This Bill would give him a right to attend, and to lay his views before the other electors. From this point of view the Chambers of Commerce and the companies attach considerable importance to the Bill. They believe it would promote economy, and that expenditure would be directed with more wisdom and prudence. My Lords, I commend this Bill to your favourable consideration, and on behalf of the companies I do not merely ask it as a boon, but may fairly claim it on their behalf as an act of justice.

My Lords, I listened with attention to the noble Earl's speech, and had hoped to have heard some strong arguments in support of this Bill. I must confess to being somewhat disappointed at not hearing any stronger arguments than he has brought forward. Nor do I quite understand why this Bill has been introduced at this particular moment. It has been urged that mercantile corporations and companies have no municipal franchise, and therefore cannot vote or have any say in local elections, and it is contended that as they contribute largely to the rates they should be entitled to vote on all questions affecting the imposition of rates. We are all agreed, generally, as to the principle of representation accompanying taxation. But the proposal contained in this Bill is an altogether new departure. The views of the important bodies to which the noble Lord has referred as being in favour of this Bill are entitled to very careful consideration, but I was not aware before that any urgent demand had been made for the change which he proposes. These bodies have never possessed any right of voting at the election of town or county councillors, and the power which they formerly had of voting at the election of members of local boards was taken away by the Local Government Act, 1894, when district councils were substituted for local boards. The Act also took away their power to vote at the election of guardians. The demand for powers such as those proposed to be given by the Bill has sprung up comparatively recently, and it will be seen that it is not consistent with modern legislation on the subject. Moreover, the Bill seems to be badly drafted, and it is doubtful whether it would carry out the intentions of the noble Lord if passed. The object of the Bill, according to the title is—

"To confer the municipal franchise upon mercantile corporations and companies."

As I say, I doubt very much whether the Bill would do that. What it would do would be to confer on some officer appointed by any of these bodies a franchise which is to some extent founded on one of the municipal franchises, but which in some material respects does not correspond with it. It would enable the officer to vote at any local election, and would provide that he should be qualified to be elected at any such election. The franchise for local elections upon which the Bill seems to be founded in the £10 occupation burgess qualification. To obtain that franchise certain conditions must be complied with. The person claiming it must, during a prescribed period—viz., the twelve months immediately preceding 15th July—have been an occupier or owner or tenant of some land or tenement in the parish of the annual value of not less than £10; someone must have been rated during the twelve months to all poor rates in respect of property, and all sums due in respect of the property on account of any poor rate made during the twelve months immediately preceding 5th January, or of any assessed taxes due before that day must have been paid. Now the clause in the Bill only requires that the corporation or company shall be in occupation of the property and be rated in respect of it. It does not require that the occupation or rating shall have extended over the twelve months preceding 15th July, or any other period, or that the rates shall have been paid. Hence the franchise proposed to be conferred differs materially from the municipal franchise referred to in the title. The title is also somewhat misleading in another direction. The Bill confers a qualification for being elected, to which the title does not refer at all. In fact the Bill seems to me to be a great deal wider in its aim than one would infer from the title. Again, in Clause 2 it is provided that the officer authorised to vote on behalf of a corporation or company shall make his claim in the prescribed form. This seems to mean the form contained in the schedule, though the schedule is nowhere mentioned in the Bill. The schedule, however, only relates to a claim to have the name of the officer inserted in the list of burgesses of municipal boroughs, and does not apply to any list of voters for other local elections. The Bill refers to all local authorities, and therefore on this point the authors do not make their intentions clear. I am of course aware that the Bill does not relate to Parliamentary elections, but it does relate to all local elections, and to carry that out there should be another form attached to this in respect of all other local elections. Further, the form refers to "assessors" of parishes. There are now no such persons in England and Wales. Whether the Bill is intended to refer to local elections in Scotland and Ireland does not appear, except that I presume it is as they are not specially excluded. The Government have carefully considered the matter and have decided that they cannot give their support to the Bill. The time for the introduction of the Bill seems, as I have said, to be inopportune. A valuation Bill has been promised and the Government have also intimated their intention of introducing legislation in an early session in relation to Parliamentary elections, in connection with which questions of this kind must be considered. The Government fail to recognise that any serious or widespread demand exists for the proposals in this Bill It could not pass in its present somewhat crude form, and the Government, therefore, cannot support the measure.

My Lords, I really do not think we ought to allow the Bill to be dismissed so summarily as is proposed by the noble Lord who has just sat down. What is the line of opposition taken by the noble Lord representing His Majesty's Government? He suggests that this is a very small measure, that it could not come into operation at once, and that it is new and ill-drafted. To oppose a Bill because it is new is remarkable, and the more remarkable when the opposition comes from a Member of a Liberal Government. As to the objection that it would not come into operation at once, is that a line of argument to be deliberately sustained? I venture to think that the fact that it would only affect a small element of the electorate is scarcely sufficient ground for opposition. I will not follow the noble Lord into his examination of parts of the Bill, which is a matter for Committee rather than the Second Beading. The question now is whether your Lordships will refuse to assent to the principle of allowing banking and commercial corporations and limited companies to have a voice in the elections of the local authorities to whose expenditure they so largely contribute. I confess that for my part I feel that the House has not heard from the noble Lord who spoke on behalf of His Majesty's Government any sufficient or valid objection to the principle of the Bill. I, therefore, hope that, if the Bill is to be rejected, it will not be rejected so summarily as is proposed.

My Lords, I have observed that when there is nothing else to be said against a Bill we are always told that it has been badly drafted. As a layman I am, of course, at a great disadvantage in attempting to answer the noble Lord who spoke on behalf of His Majesty's Government on that point. I can only say that the Bill was drawn by a lawyer of very great experience; and I submit that that argument, and, indeed, most of the arguments brought forward by Lord Allendale are really questions for Committee and do not go to the principle of the Bill. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether I am to understand that this question of the representation of companies is going to be dealt with in the Bill which His Majesty's Government propose to introduce. Unless the noble Lord can give me some assurance on that point I shall ask your Lordships to vote for the Second Reading of this Bill, which has the almost unanimous support of all those engaged in the commerce and industry of this country.

My Lords, I do not wish to say very much with regard to this Bill, and certainly I do not desire to appear as one who objects to any innovation. But this is certainly a very strong proposition. Hitherto votes have been given by men; now they are to be given by companies of men. It is quite a mistake to think that these properties are not represented; they are represented by their owners, who are all human beings. It is proposed to divorce the responsibility of exercising the franchise from the in dividual personality and to put it in the hands of a legal entity. Speaking for myself, I think that is a very strong proposal, and one of which I do not my self approve.

My Lords, I confess I think there is something to be said for the principle contained in this Bill, because, as a matter of fact, in regard to local rates these companies are not represented by their shareholders as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has inferred. But I would suggest to my noble friend who has introduced this Bill whether it is worth his while to proceed further with it in view of the very decided opposition which has been given to it by His Majesty's Government. We understand that the question will soon arise in the shape of a Bill dealing with valuation and rating in England, on which it would be possible for my noble friend to bring forward this matter as an additional clause to the Bill. The principle involved is no doubt rather a new one in rating legislation, and as it is quite clear that this Bill cannot become law in the present session with the opposition of His Majesty's Government, I would suggest to my noble friend that it is hardly worth while to proceed with it now.

I should be very glad, as this Bill has not been before the House for some time, if the noble Earl would give a short explanation on one or two points. When the Bill was orginally introduced everyone, of course, realised its general importance, and one of the matters that attracted attention was that it did not include Ireland. Ireland had been included in and omitted from previous Bills, and it was deemed wise to refer it to a Select Committee. The result of the consideration of the Committee was that they recommended the desirability of including Ireland, and the Bill was reprinted in accordance with the recommendations of that Committee and included Ireland practically without qualification. But, in view of the Amendments on the Paper in the name of the noble Earl the Leader of the House, I would invite a short explanation from him on one or two points. I should think myself that on a question like this, dealing so much with the happiness and the welfare of the people, it would be desirable as far as possible to have common legislation. I do not see why what are safeguards in the matter of poisons in England, Scotland, and Wales, should not be applied also to Ireland. That was the idea, I gather, of the Select Committee, and I do hot quite follow the alterations which it is now proposed to effect. The Amendments on the Paper purport, as I gather, to apply only two sections of the Bill to Ireland. I think that must be a mistake. I assume there is nothing more susceptible of general application to all parts of the country than a schedule of poisons. What is a poison in England should be a poison in Ireland. The schedule mentioned in the first section of the Bill is a very considered section. It was thought out and discussed, I have no doubt, with the wisdom of scientific knowledge. I gather, from my reading of the noble Earl's Amendments, that the schedule is not extended to Ireland. I only mention it because I can hardly think that that is intended, and if I am right in that the matter can be adjusted later. It is quite obvious it cannot be intended. If it is intended it is unintelligible, and if it is unintelligible it is indefensible. There is one other matter to which I would draw attention. It has been required that persons selling poisons should label them as poisonous. I have no doubt that the law is not sought to be changed, but this is one of those occasions when repetition would be desirable; and as you are dealing in this Bill with poisonous substances I think it would be desirable to take the opportunity of a very short statement in the schedule to the effect that, as already indicated, poisons should be marked "Poisons." For common caution it is needed. I do not know whether it has been considered that poisonous substances used for agricultural purposes should be sold to the public without any indication that they may be dangerous to human life. They are called in the Bill poisonous, and therefore they might be very dangerous. It may be dealt with already, and I do not propose to say anything further on the subject. My only desire was to direct attention to it. I would also draw attention to the second part of the schedule. Under the heading of "Carbolic Acid" there is a statement that it is to be contained in a closed bottle and to be marked "Poisonous." I do not object; I think it wise and sensible; but why is that alone to be marked poisonous? That is a matter that may have been considered by the Select Committee, and it is one that can readily be set right in drafting. I do not think it would be desirable or fair that I should say anything more in reference to the matter now.

My Lords, I think it might be for the general convenience if I say a word on the points raised by the noble and learned Lord, opposite before we take the Bill clause by clause. As regards the general inclusion of Ireland, it is perfectly true that there was some dispute on that subject, and it was left to the Committee to decide one way or the other. They recommended the inclusion of Ireland, and the noble and learned Lord has very naturally, I think, drawn attention to the fact that only certain clauses, by an Amendment which I shall have to propose, apply to that country. The case for the inclusion of Ireland was founded mainly on Clause 2 of the Bill. It was pointed out that the need for these agricultural and horticultural substances was very specially felt in Ireland owing to the sparsely populated character of some parts of the country, and that particular side of the question was very strongly pressed from Ireland. That applies also to Section 5, but Section 3, relating to companies, was not as strongly pressed from the Irish side. The case does not arise there at all to the same extent as it does in England, and when the matter came to be looked into, it was found that the pharmacy laws in Ireland are so different in many essential respects from those in England that, as a matter of drafting, it became absolutely impossible to incorporate them in this Bill. That is, as I am informed, the reason which actuated the Irish Office in asking that the other clauses of the Bill should not apply to Ireland. The noble and learned Lord raised the question of the schedule, and asked why that w s not made to apply to Ireland. Ireland has always had a schedule of its own, drawn up by the College of Surgeons and amended from time to time by Order in Council. If, therefore, Ireland desires to have this particular schedule, or the amended schedule which I am going to propose, nothing is easier than for an Irish Order in Council to be obtained assimilating the Irish schedule to this one.

It is much easier to put it in this Bill.

We do not know that Ireland wants this schedule. We have no information that it does. This is a schedule prepared by the Privy Council and the pharmacists of England, and whether it is the particular schedule which is preferred m Ireland, I am not in a position to say. But if the noble and learned Lord is Tight in thinking that it is, the two can quite well be assimilated. As regards the question of marking poisonous substances sold for agricultural and horticultural purposes, the noble and learned Lord will find that that is amply provided for in the regulations to be issued by the Privy Council. Those regulations have not, I think, been laid on the Table of the House, but I should be quite prepared to lay them at any time. The noble and learned Lord will find that his point is fully covered by those regulations. I think these are the only matters which were mentioned by the noble and learned Lord. Any other point that arises can be dealt with in the course of the discussion in Committee.

said he thought it only fair to mention that, as at present advised, he would move, at the next stage of the Bill, that this be one of the sections that should apply to Ireland. It could be applied, he understood, without much alteration. He could not understand why, when they had thrashed out in a Select Committee with all the advice at their disposal, a new schedule carrying the schedule of poisons up-to-date, it should be enacted for England only, and that the old Irish schedules should be left to be varied from time to time as Ireland might think right.

Of course, there can be no objection to the noble and learned Lord pursuing the course which he indicates he means to take; but between how and then we shall, no doubt, be able to discover whether the Irish authorities desire to adopt this schedule, or not.

I move an Amendment in page 1, line 15, to leave out "for use exclusively in connection with agriculture or horticulture," and to insert "to be used exclusively in agriculture or horticulture for the destruction of insects, fungi, or bacteria, or as sheep dips or weed killers." This alteration is made to make it rather more clear exactly what substances were intended to be sold under this section. The form of it, I think, was suggested by the Pharmaceutical Society, and I understand that the Board of Agriculture agree to it, and, so far as we know, it is not objected to by anybody. In fact, the noble Viscount opposite (Lord Hill) has something of the same kind on the Paper.

said he noticed with satisfaction that the noble Earl had moved an Amendment to meet what they considered the rather wide wording in the clause as it stood. Practically there was very little difference between the noble Earl's Amendment and his. He would, however, ask the noble Earl whether he did not consider the word "bacteria" a little too wide. It might on some occasions cause the introduction of disinfectants.

said the Committee had considered this matter very carefully, and he thought the words in the Bill were better than those in the Amendment moved by Lord Crewe, or in that standing in the name of Viscount Hill. The words in the clause were "for use exclusively." That kept them entirely for agricultural and horticultural purposes. There was very little in the matter, and if the Minister for Agriculture accepted Lord Crewe's Amendment he (Lord Saltoun) would not object.

who also served on the Committee, agreed very much with the noble Lord who had just spoken. They were anxious to benefit agriculture by enabling farmers to get these things which they needed in their trade as easily as possible, and the wider the wording the better he would have liked it. But he supposed there were practical reasons which had led the Government to propose this restricting Amendment. For himself, he very much preferred the Amendment moved by Lord Crewe to the still more limited Amendment standing in the name of Viscount Hill.

One noble Lord thinks these words too wide, and the other is of opinion that they are too narrow. Therefore, I think the words in my Amendment seem to be indicated as the correct ones.

My Lords, this is rather a complicated and intricate point, and I am not quite sure that the noble Lord in his Amendment does what he imagines he is doing. The effect of what the noble Lord desires to do would be that towns with a population exceeding. 10,000 would be included, not by any test of the present population, but by the test of the population as it was in the year 1881. Then it is not the case that it is the local authorities who are charged with the appointment of analyists who inspect and take samples for the purpose of the Sale of Foods and Drugs Act. That business extends to any local authority which appoints a medical officer of health, an inspector of nuisances, or an inspector of weights and measures. These licences, of course, do not apply very largely to urban districts. That is obvious. The question is infinitely more important in connection with rural areas, because Clause 2 is drawn in order to meet a particular case of thinly-populated rural areas. What would happen under the noble Lord's Amendment would be this: The authorities entitled under his Amendment to issue licences would be the following: the Common Council of the City of London, the borough councils of London, the county councils of extra-Metropolitan counties, the councils of county boroughs, and the town councils of boroughs containing, according to the census of 1881, a population exceeding 10,000, and possessing either a Court of Quarter Sessions or a separate Police Court. The authorities we propose under the regulations are: the London County Council in London, the county councils of extra-Metropolitan counties, the councils of county boroughs, and the town councils of all boroughs exceeding 10,000 in population at the last census—the census of 1901; and I must say that ours seems to me of the two to be the more practical proposal. There is no particular connection that I can see between the work of foods and drugs inspectors and the issuing of licences under this Bill. I do not see that there is any special relation between the two things. I do not know whether the actual authorities are open to variation, but I suppose everybody would agree that the county councils are the proper authorities in the counties, and I should have thought the London County Council was the best authority for the London district. I am quite content myself to leave the matter as it is, and I confess I do not see the advantage of the Amendment suggested by the noble Lord.

supported the proposal of the Government as against the Amendment. As drafted the Bill left the selection of the local authority to the Privy Council. The sketch which the noble Earl had given of the local authorities would, he believed, be thoroughly satisfactory. He thought it undesirable to have separate authorities for small country towns with 10,000 population; and that it was best to leave the Bill as it stood.

said he understood from Lord Crewe that the authority in the counties would be the county council. But where was it stated that that would be the authority?

I ought to have explained that it is in the draft regulations proposed by the Privy Council.

Those regulations I are already decided upon and in print?

Yes, they are drawn up.

Then we may take it that the authorities stated by the noble Earl are to be the authorities under the Bill?

Yes.

did not, in these circumstances, see any necessity for making the proposed alteration.

said he had been in favour of the Amendment, but after-hearing the explanation of Lord Crewe as to who would be the authorities under the Bill he suggested that Lord. Monk-Bretton should withdraw it.

I hope the Committee will not accept the noble Lord's Amendment. He desires that the provisions of this section shall not be applicable in any municipal borough or in any urban district containing a duly registered chemist and druggist actually carrying on the business of a chemist and druggist. It does not at all follow that because there is a chemist in a place, the reasonable requirements of agriculturists will be met. It is quite possible that he might decline to supply these substances at all. He might not think it worth his while. No provision is inserted in the Amendment compelling him to meet the requirements of the public at all, and, of course, it obviously would be impossible to insert such a section. These licences will, I think it is quite certain, being in the hands of responsible local authorities, be issued with very great care; and I have no doubt that no licence will be issued at all in places where there are chemists who are in the habit of selling these things and who satisfy the public. I must draw attention to subsection (2) of this section, which says that before granting any licence under this section the local authority shall take into consideration whether in the neighbourhood where the applicant for the licence carries on or intends to carry1 on business, the reasonable requirements of the public with respect to the purchase of such poisonous substances are satisfied. Therefore, if the chemist is there and sells the things, obviously no licence will be issued; but if he is there and does not sell the thing, the licence ought to be issued.

said the noble Viscount (Lord Hill) could not possibly have moved this Amendment if he had been on the Committee. They had abundant evidence that there was an enormous number of small towns in the West of Ireland and in the North of Scotland where there was no chemist at all. But, even supposing there were one, that man, under the noble Viscount's Amendment, would enjoy an absolute monopoly of the sale of these things, and the whole of the clause, which was to enlarge the area in which these things might be obtained would be rendered nugatory. If the noble Viscount would look at the next clause he would see that the whole question of licences was left to the local authority. If greater facilities were required the authority would grant the licence; if not they would refuse it.

This is a question of machinery and convenience. I am sorry to oppose the noble Viscount's Amendment again, but I think it might lead to some practical inconvenience if it required an Act of Parliament either to withdraw some substance which it might be found was not safe to leave under this section or to add some newly invented substance which might be wanted. It might, for instance, be found that some substance authorised under this schedule was too dangerous to be sold. I do not think it is likely to happen, but it might conceivably occur, in which case the Privy Council would wish to withdraw it. But what is more likely to happen is that a new substance might be invented and the Privy Council might wish to include it. But these things are not done in the dark. Notice has to be published in the Gazette, and thereby the matter is brought before the cognisance of everybody when any proposal for a new Order in Council is intended. I think that will be an ample safeguard.

said the explanation of the noble Earl that public notice would be given of any change was satisfactory to him, and he, therefore, withdrew his Amendment.

The next series of Amendments open up the whole vexed question of titles, about which there has been so much controversy both in and out of the House. I hope that by these Amendments we have arrived at a conclusion which is fairly satisfactory to everybody. It is, I hope, accepted both by the Pharmaceutical Society and also by the companies who sell. I propose, in lines 9 and 10, to leave out the words "and may use the description of chemist and druggist, or of chemist, or of druggist," and to subsequently insert the words standing in my name on the Paper. I had better speak of the Amendments together as the whole matter is one. I move to insert—

"A body corporate, and in Scotland a firm or partnership—"

—in Scotland a firm or partnership is a technical term which, I understand, has a different meaning from that which it would bear in England—

"—may use the description of chemist or druggist, or of chemist, or of druggist, or of dispensing chemist or druggist, if the foregoing requirements as to the carrying on of the business are observed—"

that is to say, provided there is a qualified man in every shop or place in which the business is carried on—

"And if one at least of the board of directors or other governing body of the body corporate, or one at least of the members of the firm or partnership, as the case may be, is a duly registered pharmaceutical chemist or chemist and druggist, but nothing in this provision shall authorise any body corporate, or in Scotland a firm or partnership to use the description of pharmacist."

It is important to see how it comes about that the great companies accept this Amendment, as I am glad to believe they do. They do not use the title of chemist and druggist or chemist or druggist. Harrod's Stores, the Army and Navy Stores, and others, do not use this title, and therefore they are not obliged by this Amendment to place a qualified chemist on their board. All that they want to do is to be able to call themselves chemists on their labels and to sell, as they do in a very well-managed fashion, the various drugs. There are other companies who sell on a large scale who also are not affected by this provision, because they do have qualified men on their boards. There are some of the great chemist companies so well-known by name and by advertisement who do not object to this Amendment for that reason. But it was pointed out to us that there is a third possible class of company—namely, the bogus company; that is to say, a man gets six other men of straw to form themselves into a company. It is conceivable that a man who has been removed from the Pharmaceutical Society for malpractices might form a company of that kind, call himself a chemist and druggist, and set up as a one-man company. That we prevent, as we hope, by this provision that there must be a qualified man on the board or partnership. I think, therefore, that this Amendment, which has been the result of a great deal of discussion and a great deal of thought, has at last reached a sufficient measure of agreement to satisfy all parties. So far as regular chemists are concerned, by a subsequent Amendment we preserve to them the special title of pharmacist. That will be the mark that will differentiate them from those who merely sell drugs as chemists, and by that means I hope we have secured, if not their complete approval, at any rate their acquiescence. I therefore move this series of Amendments with considerable confidence that the House will be willing to accept them.

congratulated the noble Earl in charge of the Bill upon the strategy with which he had turned their flank by the alteration of his own Amendment. As the Amendment stood the previous night the words "dispensing chemist or druggist" appeared at the end, but they had now been dropped. The addition of those words was strongly objected to by some of the leading firms who had been in the habit for many years of using this term. He was very glad that the noble Earl had been able to drop those words, as such a provision would have constituted a grievance, and involved a serious financial loss to the companies concerned. The description of "pharmacist" was a very different thing. Pharmacist was a professional term; chemist was a trade term. He failed to see what security the provi- vision in the Amendment of requiring one qualified chemist to be on the directorate of the company would afford, as the qualified director might be a sleeping partner, and the safety of the public arose from having a qualified dispenser in each shop. He held in his hand the judgment of Lord Blackburn, in which the noble and learned Lord distinctly said that the whole safety of the public depended on the keeping of a qualified assistant to superintend and conduct the sale of drugs.

agreed with Lord Haversham, but felt that as a settlement had been arrived at by compromise it was inadvisable to reopen it.

said the wording had been very carefully considered by the Committee, and the provision requiring a qualified person to be in charge of every shop was inserted solely for the protection of the public. The Committee did not accept the provision that one of the members of the firm should be a duly registered chemist, but, as the matter had been agreed to, he did not desire to say anything more on the subject.

asked permission, as he was a party to the compromise on this question two years ago, to define his attitude in regard to the present proposals. Having ascertained from the newspapers the intentions of the noble Earl with regard to this Bill he sought and secured assurances that the proposals, where they varied from the compromise of two years ago, should be so worded as not to bring within their operation companies which, although they transacted the business of chemists and druggists, did not employ that designation in their title. His noble friend gave him those assurances and had repeated them again to-day. He was sure the assurances were quite sincere. But there would be one better alternative, in his opinion, than the acceptance of the proposed words, and that would be to pass the clause in the form in which it came down to the House from the Joint Committee appointed to consider the Bill. If that alternative were offered to him he would certainly embrace it.

said he had obtained information as to a company that had recently been formed under the new Companies Act. The men concerned were engineers, but they had registered themselves as chemists and druggists. Supposing they employed a qualified man to sell drugs, he would only be a servant. He would like to know what guarantee the public had in such a case of the safe dispensing of medicines.

understood that the Amendment was consistent with the earlier provision that every place of business would have to be conducted by a duly qualified chemist. He understood that that was not to be affected.

That is so. Noble Lords will see in the Amendment the provision that it is subject to the foregoing requirements as to the carrying on of the business being observed.

And, in addition, the Amendment seeks to secure that in certain cases there shall be a duly registered chemist on the board of directors?

That is so. This is really not a very important matter, but it does represent, as several noble Lords have said, an arrangement which has been arrived at. My noble friend behind me is perfectly right in saying that the titles either of chemist, or of druggist, or of chemist and druggist, or of dispensing chemist and druggist, cannot be used, although the business may be carried on—it is important to bear that distinction in mind—unless there is a qualified chemist on the board of directors. As the noble Lord opposite, Lord Ebury, has said, we fully admitted that to compel, for instance, the Army and Navy Stores, with which the noble Lord is connected, to place a qualified chemist and druggist on their board for the purposes of this Act would be something of an absurdity; and he, of course, will admit, in his turn, that he is relieved from any such responsibility by the terms of the Amendment now before the Committee. He does not want to use the title either of chemist or druggist, and, therefore need not have a qualified man on his board. The noble Lord behind me, Lord Haversham, asked why this Amendment was necessary at all. Its intention, I admit, is not entirely for the protection of the public, although it does to some degree enter into the protection of the public. It is the desire of the pharmacy profession to meet a case of this kind. A one-man company is formed, employing no doubt a qualified assistant, but that man is, as the noble Viscount opposite has pointed out, the absolute servant of this not merely unqualified, but possibly disqualified person. Therefore, although he may be held in one sense responsible, he may be placed in a position of extreme difficulty as between his duty to the public and his duty to his employer. That kind of company, we maintain, has no locus standi to exist at all, if it is prevented from existing by this Amendment. I think it will be altogether to the advantage of the public. We entirely appreciate the work done by great chemist companies, such as Boots, and companies of that kind. We also appreciate the work done by individual chemists in small shops; but the small employer who uses a qualified chemist for his own purposes is not, we think, a person who deserves any sympathy or support; and it is the fact that it may very fairly be held that public safety is to some extent compromised by the existence of shops of that kind. I hope, therefore, your Lordships will agree to the Amendment as it stands.

I do not know that the proposed substitution is very much of an improvement in the Bill as it stands, but I do not wish to offer any opposition to it.

I do not think that it is practically the same. You have to consider the effect of the word "poison" on the public. These things undoubtedly are poisons, and, in my opinion, the word "poison" is a more effective word to frighten the public than the word "dangerous."

said he, too, had stated all he wished to say on this point. But he would observe that the particular Amendment it was now sought by the noble Earl largely to obliterate was moved in the Select Committee by the Chairman, Lord Haversham, and assented to without objection.

who last year moved the exclusion of Ireland, from the Bill, said that as its application to Ireland had been considered by the Select Committee and they recommended that Ireland should be included, he would not further oppose its inclusion.

inquired whether the amended Schedule contained any substantial alterations.

It does not include, so far as I know, any new substances of importance except in a technical sense. The terms of description are in some degree altered, but the Schedule does not include any new substance which would be of interest to the noble and learned Lord or myself.

Why is the Standing Committee to be negatived? If the Standing Committee is to be recognised at all, it is just a Bill of this kind that should be referred to it.

I would remind the noble and learned Lord that the Bill has been very carefully considered by a Joint Committee and has also had the advantage of the close attention of the Government draftsman. But, if the noble and learned Lord wishes it, the Bill shall go to the Standing Committee.

I think the fact that the noble Earl has thrown over a substantial part of the recommendations of the Select Committee is a good reason why this Bill should go to the Standing Committee. I will, however, withdraw my objection.

:I beg to give notice that, on some early day, I shall move the abolition of the Standing Committee stage.

My Lords, the object of this Bill is to amend the law as regards a landlord's right of distress. I think I may almost describe it as a reply to an invitation from the Judicial Bench. As your Lordships are aware, the law of distress in its primary form enabled the landlord to seize on any goods in place of rent due. The extreme severity of that law was alleviated long ago, and the Act of 1871 exempted from seizure the goods of lodgers, excepting in so far as they were in arrears of rent to their immediate landlord. That left the general law in a condition that required a good deal of amendment and a strong case that happened two years ago drew special attention to it. Your Lordships will probably remember the incident. A society of artists entered into an agreement with a person to hold an exhibition of their productions in a hall in the West End, and scarcely had their pictures been stored there than the superior landlord seized them in distress to meet the rent due to him from the immediate landlord of the society. The case was brought before the Courts, and Mr. Justice Neville expressed a strong opinion upon the barbarity of the law, and said it was a scandal that it should remain in that condition unamended. He was constrained, however, to allow the right of the superior landlord to be exercised. The case was carried to the Court of Appeal where the same language was held in respect to the state of the law and the necessity of amending it. The present Bill is intended to move in the direction indicated, if I may say so, by members of the Judicial Bench. It proposes practically to place all tenants in the position in which lodgers are placed under the Lodgers' Goods Protection Act of 1871, and to exempt their goods from seizure by the superior landlord, except so far as the tenant might be in arrear to the immediate landlord. To that extent the superior landlord would be entitled to seize and make good his claim. I think the principle of the Bill will recommend itself to your Lordships' approbation. The Bill does ensure the result aimed at, though I must admit that the form of it may require some attention. It is, in fact, an illustration of that form of drafting to which the attention of your Lordships was recently drawn and which is open to much criticism. It is an illustration of drafting by reference, but I hope that objection to the form of the Bill will not interfere with the acceptance of the Second Reading in order that in Committee it may be put into a shape that will more recommend itself. The observations made from the Judicial Bench in the case to which I have referred excited the attention of many people. When I read them I thought the amendment of the law which was invited by Mr. Justice Neville and the Judges of the Appeal Court might reasonably be introduced into your Lordships' House. I therefore drafted a Bill for the purpose. I recognised, however, that any Bill introduced in your Lordship's House would stand no chance of becoming law, owing to the state of business in the other House, unless it received the support of His Majesty's Government. I subsequently observed that a Member of the other House had taken up the subject and introduced a Bill, and thereupon I readily agreed not to proceed further with my own project. The hon. Member who had charge of the Bill did not secure a good place in the ballot, and the only way in which it was possible to pass the Bill was by presenting it to the other House in the form in which it has now reached your Lordships. It has been considered there very carefully. It was read a second time and referred to one of the Grand Committees, where it was gone into in great detail. A readiness was expressed—I do not know that I can put it higher—on the part of the representative of the Government to entertain the notion of a Consolidating Bill to amend the law of distress, which would incorporate the present Bill and the Act of 1871 in one measure. But I appeal to your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Beading on account of its merits, so that we may have an opportunity in Committee to put it in a shape which may commend it to your Lordships generally. I should be happy to confer between now and the Committee stage with any of your Lordships who might do me the honour of making suggestions as to the form of the Bill. I certainly hope that this scandalous state of the law will not remain unamended for another year. I beg very confidently to recommend the principle of the Bill to your Lordships.

My Lords, I do not want to interpose between the noble Lord and the House, except to say that though this is not a Government Bill, it is one which the Government support, simply because it gives fair play. I hope that your Lordships will distinguish between form and substance. The question of form is, after all, a small matter. The Bill is drawn on the basis of assimilating other persons to lodgers. It might have been drawn otherwise, and have been placed alongside a Consolidating Bill in the same way as the Patents Bill was a year and a-half ago. As to the question of form, we can correct that. The point is whether it is right in substance. Surely it is right. I do not want to dogmatise, but I think everybody will hold that. At present the general law is that the landlord may distrain on any goods he finds on the premises, whether they belong to the tenant or not, in order to pay the rent due by the tenant alone. In other words, the property of one man may be taken to pay the debt of another. That is very cruel indeed in operation, as was exemplified in the case of the Society or Artists to which reference has been made. They had placed their pictures in the hall for the purpose of selling them, and had paid the rent for the use of the hall; yet down came the superior landlord and seized their pictures and sold them because his tenant had not paid him. That is revolting, I venture to think, to all lovers of fair play. May I read two or three sentences from what was said by Lord Blackburn as to how this extraordinary law came to be the law of England. The learned Judge said—

"The general rule of common law was that whatever was found on demised premises, whether belonging to a stranger or not, might be seized by the landlord and held as a distress till the rent was paid or the service performed. That was the old law, and it produced no harm. But in the reign of William and Mary a very harsh and unjust law was passed by which the right was given to the landlord to sell goods seized, and to apply the proceeds to the payment of the rent unless the tenant or owner of the goods first paid it; and this held out a great temptation to the landlord to seize goods although he knew they were not the tenants.'

I do not believe most landlords would seize the goods of a stranger which were upon their tenants' premises. It is wrong, hard, and unfair, that that should be done. There are exceptions to that harsh rule which have been engrafted upon it from time to time, so that the enactment has been eroded a good deal. The principle of the Bill is one of elementary fairness, and one which will, therefore, appeal to your Lordships.

My Lords, while I have no intention of offering any objection to the Second Reading of the Bill I was glad to recognise in the candid and temperate statement of Lord Courtney that he was aware of the fact that the Bill requires consideration and amendment. No one would seek to defend at this time of day the right to seize one man's property for another man's debt. Efforts have from time to time been made, as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said, to meet this harsh rule in certain cases. The most notable is the Act of 1871, known as the Lodgers' Goods Protection Act. That Act gave protection in respect of lodgers' goods, and is in beneficent operation. But this Bill is clumsy and awkward, and in some particulars may not be quite defensible. I do not doubt that it represents an honest desire to deal with the problem; but when it comes to be considered it will be found to need alteration. After all, landlords are not to be treated as outlaws. There may be cases in which they have a legitimate right to appeal to this old law of distress, and, therefore, that law should not be too drastically dealt with. I noted the noble Lord's statement that he had applied his own skill to drafting a Bill. It would be very interesting if the noble Lord's Bill could be put side by side with this one, and perhaps he will give us an opportunity of doing so.

My Lords, before we part with the Second Reading of this Bill I think it would be useful to call the attention of your Lordships to its extraordinary drafting, which has been already admitted by the noble Lord in charge of the measure. It is one of the worst specimens of drafting by reference that I have ever seen. The Act which it is proposed to amend is the Lodgers' Goods Protection Act of 1871. I hold that Act in my hand. The enacting part of it, omitting the preamble, takes less than a page of the Statute-Book. It consists of no more than three enacting clauses, which this Bill proposes to amend. How does it propose to amend them? In the first place, wherever the word "lodger" occurs in the existing Act, certain other words are to be substituted. The word "lodger" occurs fourteen or fifteen times in the forty-five lines of the original Act. Next the Bill proposes to strike out six lines of the first section of the existing Act, and to substitute ten lines for them. It strikes out three lines in the second section of the Act, and substitutes five lines for them. Then it leaves out the whole of the third section in the Act, and substitutes a much longer one; and, finally, it contains a new clause altogether excluding certain goods. Then there is the short title and the construction of the Act. If it were intended to frame a Bill from which it should be impossible for anyone to ascertain the law, that purpose could not have been carried out better than in this Bill. No one, whether lawyer or not, could possibly ascertain from it what the law is without having the other Act also in his hand. After what has been said by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack I should hope that, assuming the House is prepared to accept this Bill as it stands—I do not know whether it is or not—His Majesty's Government would take up this question, repeal the Act of 1871, and bring in a complete Bill enacting the law as it is proposed to be amended by this Bill. I must say that if we are in this House to fulfil our duty as a revising Chamber, we should never find a better case for its exercise than is afforded by this Bill. I hope that is the course which His Majesty's Government will follow. I also trust that, after what has been said recently from both sides of the House as to the evils of legislation by reference, some practical step will be taken to show the other House and those concerned that, at any rate, we do not approve of this evil system.

My Lords, I am in entire agreement with everything that has fallen from the noble Viscount, both as regards the form of this particular Bill and on the general subject of legislation by reference; but I confess I am a little nervous when he asks us to take up a private Bill, after what fell from the noble Marquess yesterday, even when the object is such a good one as this Bill has in view. I therefore cannot make any promise of that kind, but I am sure that if the noble Viscount devoted himself to wording it he would do it quite as well as, if not better than, we could. I agree that if the Bill is to leave your Lordships' House it ought to leave it, though not in substance, at any rate in form, very different from what it is at present.

My Lords, I do not wish to trouble your Lordships with a subject which is much better dealt with by lawyers than by laymen, and I had hoped that some noble Lord would have called attention to the matter of this Bill as well as to its form. I do not consider the matter is quite so simple as some noble Lords seem to think. I suppose we all agree that hard cases such as that mentioned by Lord Courtney ought to be remedied; and if the Bill had been confined to dealing with cases of that sort I think we should all have agreed. But I must point out that it goes a great deal further. Under the Bill a ground landlord may be placed in a serious difficulty if the person to whom he had let land on a building lease disappears after having obtained a premium from a tenant to whom the property had been sub-let without the landowner having any voice in the matter.

He could take possession of the property. A landowner letting land on lease or otherwise always reserves the power of re-entry in the event of the rent not being paid, and if the ground rent were not paid he would take possession of the property with the improvements upon it. That is what makes ground rents such a valuable property.

If the noble and learned Lord says that, of course I accept it; but I was informed that there was no protection for the ground landlord in the Bill.

My Lords, I have some confidence in asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill, because it is one of the very few measures relating to Ireland which have been fortunate enough to pass the House of Commons with unanimous consent. I am informed that it has the approval of the temperance party, and also of the trade in Ireland. It is a Bill to amend the law relating to drunkenness in Ireland and for purposes connected therewith. I need only mention a few of the most important clauses. The first clause protects the property of a woman where the husband has been proved to be a habitual drunkard, and the second clause does the same for the property of the husband where the wife is a habitual drunkard. Clause 4 prevents anything so protected from being sold, and the fifth clause gives a right of appeal when an order imposing a fine or inflicting punishment has been made under the Act. The seventh clause states that, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Employers and Workmen Act, 1875, where the breach of contract for which damages are awarded under that Act consists of or includes drunkenness, or was directly contributed to by drunkenness, the Court may award imprisonment in default of the payment of the said damages as if the same were a penal sum. The 8th Clause makes a person liable to a penalty who, being drunk while in charge of any person, or animal, or thing, endangers the life or limb of any person; and Clause 10 provides a penalty for persons found drunk in charge of children on licensed premises. There are one or two points, which, perhaps, may require Amendment in Committee, but I think I may recommend the Bill as a good one in itself. I therefore ask your Lord-ships to give it a Second Reading.

My Lords, the noble Lord has given a very clear and concise account of the contents of the Bill, which has the approval of the Government, and to the Second Reading of which they cordially assent.

My Lords, it is impossible to read this Bill without seeing that it is aimed at meeting a great evil. It was piloted through the House of Commons by the Marquess of Hamilton the Member for Londonderry, and it deals with a matter which has attracted a great deal of attention in that part of the country with which my noble friend is connected. It provides for the grave case of husbands who become habitual drunkards and ruin their homes, and also with the case of married women who become habitual drunkards and wreck the happiness of their families. The Bill commended itself to general approval in the House of Commons, and I apprehend that your Lordships will be pleased to accord to it a rapid transit through this House.

My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government, with a view to removing any possible doubt that may exist on the subject, whether it is a fact that the full Union Jack may be flown on land by every citizen in the Empire as well as on Government Offices and Public Buildings.

My Lords, the noble Earl asks me, with a view to removing any possible doubt that may exist on the subject, whether it is a fact that the full Union Jack may be flown on land by every citizen in the Empire. As many of us know, there has existed in the public mind a Curious confusion as to what flags may be flown and what may not. At one time it seemed to be believed that the Royal Standard could be flown anywhere and by anybody. That, however, as we now know, is not the case. It was formally announced that the Royal Standard is the personal flag of the Sovereign, and cannot properly be flown without His Majesty's permission, which is only granted when either the King or Queen is present. But, of course, a very different state of things applies to the Union Jack. I think it may fairly be stated, in reply to the noble Earl, that the Union Jack should be regarded as the National flag, and it undoubtedly may be flown on land by all His Majesty's subjects.

My Lords' I am very pleased indeed to hear from His Majesty's Government the statement that the Union Jack may be flown on land by all British subjects. There has been a certain amount of doubt on the subject, and it is as well that it should have been set at rest. It is rather curious that a British citizen is about the only one who is not quite certain under what flag he really stands as a private citizen; and I have known of some instances in this country where the Union Jack has actually been pulled down by the police. I am obliged to His Majesty's Government for having definitely cleared up this matter.