My Lords, I notice that three Members of the Government have precisely similar Motions on the Paper, and while I have no desire to be unfair, I think the House should be given some explanation why it is proposed to dispense with the Sessional Order. The understanding hitherto has always been that when this indulgence is asked of the House, some explanation should be given of the particular circumstances which render it necessary. I do not know anything of the circumstances in this case and do not desire to oppose the Motion, but I should be sorry if the suspension of Sessional Orders became a mere matter of form.

My Lords, perhaps I may say a word generally on the Motions standing on the Paper. In each case I have had the advantage of seeing the reasons why it was desirable that this Sessional Order should be dispensed with, and I am bound to say that the reasons put forward have commended themselves to me. In several cases the reason is that in another place these Bills I have not been considered at that period of the session when I think they ought to have been considered. The Government Departments concerned are, therefore, face to face with the alternative of losing their Bills altogether, or of asking your Lordships to dispense with the Sessional Order, so that the difficulties which have arisen in another place may be overcome.

I presume the noble Lord is satisfied with that explanation?

Yes. But I think the explanation ought to have been made by the Member of the Government moving the motion and not left to be extracted from the Lord Chairman.

My Lords, I understand that several noble Lords wish to speak on this Motion. I think, therefore, it would be more convenient if I reserve what I have to say until I have heard the criticisms which I believe are to be made.

My Lords, it will be remembered that the Second Reading of this Bill was taken in a very thin House, and that Lord Stanley of Alderley's Motion to adjourn the Second Reading debate was withdrawn on the understanding that those who desired to speak on the Bill should have an opportunity of doing so on the Motion to go into Committee. I observe that His Majesty's Government have drafted a series of very important Amendments, which I understand from the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill are for the benefit of the Bill. But I regret that by one of the Amendments Ireland is cut out. I do not know why the nurses of Ireland should be deprived of the advantages of this measure. They would benefit very largely under the Bill, especially nurses employed in out-of-the-way parts of Ireland who deal with the poorest class. We shall, I suppose, when we get into Committee, hear the reasons for the actions of the Government on this particular point. I quite realise that the question of registration is a contentious one. I have in my hand the memorial that was handed into the Committee of the House of Commons by the Chairman of the Central Hospital Council, in which it is stated that there are many nurses, matrons, medical men, and others engaged in hospital work who are opposed to registration. The Amendments now put down will, I think, protect the public from unskilled persons being able to act as nurses, and the benefit to the trained nurse, who is alleged to be placed at a disadvantage through the employment of imperfectly trained persons, will be incalculable. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill stated on the Second Reading that he had in his hand the records of a number of very serious cases of women who had posed as nurses, but had been convicted before the magistrate of malpractices. I have here on | the seat beside me many newspaper cuttings dealing with these cases, but I think it is needless to go into them. They are disagreeable cases to mention, and I do not think the present is the time or place to deal with them. But the requirements in this Bill for registration will, I am convinced, prevent these unqualified people from acting as nurses again. I have on the Paper a rather drastic Amendment, which I shall move when we go into Committee. It is to insert the following new clause—

"(1) Any Court before whom a registered nurse is convicted of any offence and ordered to be imprisoned without the option of a fine or to suffer any greater punishment, shall cause particulars of the conviction to be endorsed upon the certificate under this Act held by such registered nurse, and shall also cause a copy of those particulars to be sent to the council. (2) Any registered nurse so convicted shall produce his or her certificate under this Act within a reasonable time for the purposes of endorsement, and if he or she fails to do so shall be guilty of a misdemeanour."

If this Amendment is agreed to magistrates will be able to endorse certificates in cases of improper conduct, and this will be the means of driving black sheep out of the flock. I think it is a very great safeguard, though, perhaps, your Lordships may consider it too drastic a remedy. The fact that His Majesty's Government have acknowledged the importance of this measure by so carefully preparing Amendments leads me to suppose that the time will come when the measure will become law; but I do not suppose there is any chance of its passing this session.

Oh !

The noble Lord disagrees with me, but I think it is obviously impossible that the Bill should become law this session, owing to the congested state of public business in the other House. Great good, however, will be done by a full discussion of the matter. I must press for an explanation as to why Ireland is cut out of the Bill. The district nurses in the poorer parts of Ireland are real angels of mercy in those districts. I do not think your Lordships have any idea of the enormous amount of valuable work they do. I think it can be said, in the case of many out-of-the-way parts of Ireland, that they have been the means of civilizing those districts. I have myself been through the district in and around Belmullet, and can personally testify that the nurses there are in favour of this measure. I hope, therefore, that Ireland will not be excluded, or, if it is excluded, that some sufficient reasons will be given.

My Lords, I think it will be convenient if, before we go into Committee, I make some general statement with regard to the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards this measure. Those of your Lordships who are interested in the measure will have observed that a bulky sheaf of Amendments has been placed on the Paper in my name, but, of course, on behalf of the Privy Council. I think that to attempt to deal with those Amendments seriatim in the form in which they are would be an exceedingly lengthy and a rather confusing process. The course which I suggest, therefore, is that, when the House goes into Committee, these Amendments, and, perhaps, some others—there are, I think, two in the name of Lord Mayo—should be accepted en bloc with a view to the Bill being reprinted so that their effect can be made clear. The Bill could then be recommitted and considered in that form at some future time. As the matter stands now, it would be a very tedious and difficult process to go through the Amendments and explain the purport of each. I might, however, state at this stage what the general effect of the proposed Amendments is. In the first place five clauses are struck out of the Bill, thereby getting rid of the arrangement for a provisional council, which seems to us unwieldly and unnecessary. The next important set of Amendments reduces the council to the number of fifteen, the number mentioned in the Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons, so arranged as to hold the balance between medical practitioners on the one hand and nurses on the other. The two professions will have six representatives each, the remaining three being appointed by the Privy Council. The third set of Amendments provides for the representation of the Local Government Board on the council, and secures that their responsibility for the training of nurses in Poor Law institutions should not be interfered with. The fourth gives power to the Privy Council to amend rules submitted by the nursing council, and the fifth provides for the payment of a small annual fee as a condition of the name being kept on the register. Then there is an Amendment which is not on the Paper, but which I propose should be included for the purpose of discussion, dealing with the means by which nurses can get on the register. The next Amendment exempts Ireland from the application of the Bill. On that perhaps I may say a word. The exemption of Ireland is, of course, only provisional, because Ireland might be included at any time by Order in Council. The Irish Local Government Board are indisposed to apply the Bill to Ireland at present for administrative reasons, into which I confess I have not closely looked. Therefore, it is clear that the exclusion of Ireland can only be regarded as provisional, and those noble Lords and others who object to the exclusion of Ireland will, I think, do well, before the Bill conies up again, to state their views to the Irish Local Government Board with a view to the reconsideration of the question. It is, of course, purely an Irish question, and it is one upon which those who represent the Government here would not desire without very strong reason to override the Irish Department. Therefore, noble Lords like Lord Mayo and others should make their representations on the subject to the Irish Local Government Board. The last set of Amendments provides for the creation at the end of four years of a separate register of associate nurses having a lower standard of training—a point also recommended by the Committee. I hope the course I have suggested may commend itself to the House.

My Lords, as the noble Earl opposite has stated, I withdrew my Motion for the adjournment of the Second Reading debate on the understanding that an opportunity for discussion would be afforded at this stage. I did not interpose as an opponent of the Bill, but rather as a friendly critic. I think that the Amendments which the noble Earl the Leader of the House has placed on the Paper will make the Bill a much more satisfactory measure. At the same time there are one or two points to which I should like to call the attention of the House. In the first place, I do not think the noble Earl is justified in claiming that this Bill will prevent possible scandals in the future through persons not properly qualified acting as a nurse. There is no provision in the Bill to prevent anyone practising as a nurse; all that the Bill does in that direction is to prevent a person using the title of certificated and registered nurse. I have received a document from the Society for the Promotion of the State Registration of Nurses, in which it is set out how a woman who, though not trained, got employment and went mad. But hospital training and even registration are no protection against madness. While I have not the slightest objection to classification, I am very glad that the noble Earl proposes to take out the stigma of "qualified" and "unqualified" from the Bill. If you are to secure a good class of nurses, registration of their initial qualifications will not do much for you. I think that was very strongly pressed on the Select Committee of the House of Commons by Mr Holland and other prominent people connected with the London Hospital. The really essential thing to know is what a nurse has done since her training rather than during her period of training. The Queen Victoria Institute of Jubilee Nurses, which has done more than any other institution to promote good nursing, are strong advocates of this Bill, but they recognise that even the high training which will be the basis of the certificate is inadequate in some cases. This Institute spent, according to their last account, £3,817 on what they describe as district training super induced upon the hospital training of the certificated nurse. None of that would appear in this certificate: yet they find that this further training is necessary for the cottage practice of the district nurse. There are different classes of nurses. There are those who attend the well-to-do and people who hare important operations performed by eminent surgeons. Then there is the organisation, through county associations, of nurses for the poor—district nurses. Those nurses, though they come in with little or no medical or nursing training beforehand, are generally sent for a year to Plaistow and places like that to study midwifery and other matters qualifying them to visit the poor in their homes. At this moment, under country associations, there are 540 of these nurses working up and down the country, independent of fully-trained nurses; and these nurses get, what is most important, a continuous system of inspection. Every county appoints a Jubilee nurse as a sort of superintendent of these nurses. They are carefully watched, the Queen Victoria Institute recognising the importance of continuous inspection after the nurses have obtained the certificate. I find that last year in England and Wales they spent over £2,000 on inspection. Do not let us deceive ourselves by thinking that this Bill is going to be the panacea which some people think. It will only be a guarantee of a certain amount of initial training. Both the highly trained and humbler class of nurses are needed; and I was very glad to see by the last Amendment on the Paper that the noble Earl contemplates another certificate for that type of nurse especially required for the ordinary ailments of the poor. The very highly-trained nurse gets impatient at the routine and commonplace of nursing among the poor, and the humbler women who do this work are often better qualified for it than the highly trained, if under proper supervision. I am glad there is to be a recognition of this class of nurse also, but I regret that by one of the noble Earl's Amendments the creation of this subsidiary register depends on the goodwill and recommendation of the council. The council to be created by the Amendment is better than the council in the Bill as it stands, but I think too much importance is given to the nursing element and not sufficient importance to those who have to judge of the qualities of the nurse. The Select Committee recommended that the place of examination for nurses at the beginning should be the nursing school. I think any one who has taken the trouble to read carefully the evidence of the Select Committee will see that the great nursing schools, especially in London, play an important part, and ought to be duly considered in any question of examination and registration. I, therefore, regret that there is no recognition of nursing schools as such. I was looking the other day at the constitution of the Board for the certification of midwives, and I find that it is not made up mainly from midwives themselves, but from persons more competent to judge of what is adequate training. I should like to see the independent side of the council in this Bill somewhat strengthened, though 1 admit the change as proposed is immensely for the better. I have not made these observations because I am in any way hostile to the Bill. It is impossible that the Bill can become law this session, and, therefore, I hope that, after it has been reprinted with these Amendments and fully discussed in Committee later, the Government will bring in an agreed Bill next year on these lines which could be passed as a non-contentious measure. When we consider that so great a name as that of Miss Florence Nightingale is to be found among the critics of the Bill as it stands, it is clear that the question is not quite so plain and simple a one as some people imagine.

My Lords, may I supply one omission which I made by inadvertence? I omitted to state that among the Amendments there is one to Clause 20, making a small fee payable by every registered nurse in respect of registration.

How much will the fee be?

Half a crown. That is a novelty to which I ought to have drawn attention.

My Lords, the I Amendments that have been placed on the Paper by the Government indicate that they have given careful attention to the matter with every desire to put the Bill in a shape that will commend it to general approval and meet some of the objections taken in different directions to its clauses. I think the course indicated by the noble Earl a prudent one. After the Bill has been reprinted with the Amendments incorporated, the House will be in a better position to judge of the effect of the Amendments. I have read them with close attention; and am disposed to think that the Bill I will be largely improved by the Amendments, with many of which I find myself in entire accord. I do not propose now to say anything with regard to the details, but it would be unbecoming that I should pass by without any reference to the proposal to exclude Ireland from the operation of the Bill. I cannot for the life of me understand why that step was proposed. The noble Earl stated that the Local Government Board in Ireland felt that there was some administrative difficulty. Why should there be any administrative difficulty? What is it? The Local Government Board are not troubled with hospitals and do not control nurses, except in the case of infirmaries; and, with the exception of a few letters that would have to be written by somebody in the office a few times a year, no labour would be thrown on the Department. I cannot conceive why the nurses in Ireland, persons of high character who have gone to great trouble and expense in becoming thoroughly trained, should be excluded from the advantages to be found in this Bill. Ireland has suffered a great deal in the past by these exemptions. When the Midwives Act was passed some years ago Ireland was omitted, to the great detriment of a highly-respectable class in Ireland who are now compelled, in order to get their qualification, to come over to England. It is true that power is taken to enable an Order in Council to extend the Bill to Ireland and to make the slight changes necessary in order that that may be done; but why should not Ireland be included in the Bill straight away? I am sure I shall not lack support if, when this measure comes forward again, I move an Amendment replacing Ireland in it.

My Lords, the noble Earl who leads the House has rather taken the wind out of my sails, if I may say so. I think the understanding was that I was to wait for criticisms and then say what I had to say; and I had arranged privately with the noble Earl that I would make the proposal to him that the Bill should be dealt with in the particular way he indicated.

I am afraid I must have misunderstood the noble Lord.

I hope it is permissible to explain that the suggestion was my own. I was going to make it to the noble Earl, and he was going to accept it. However, it comes with much more force from the noble Earl, and I am encouraged to hope that your Lordships will accept it. There are one or two matters of detail to which I should like briefly to refer. I am in the pleasant position of being able to accept all the Amendments of the Government, with a few reservations. I recognise in them an earnest of the goodwill of the Government, and an evidence that they are prepared to treat the Bill seriously and to do their best to help the promoters make it a thoroughly workable measure. It has been a great satisfaction to me that those who have spoken have recognised that these Amendments do effect considerable improvements in the Bill. I ask therefore to be allowed to agree to those Amendments provisionally—that is to say, without prejudice—so that when the Bill is recommitted according to the arrangement suggested it will be open to me to make a few objections. I can promise your Lordships that those objections will be very few, and they relate principally to the exclusion of Ireland. I cannot help thinking that this exclusion is due to some misapprehension. In the first place, there is no body of nurses who are keener on this subject of State registration than the nurses of Ireland. They have been at immense pains to promote their efficiency, and they had practically the whole of the organised medical profession in Ireland at their back. I cannot help thinking that the noble Earl himself will get into very serious trouble with the Irish Party in the other House if he persists in the exclusion of Ireland. I have very certain information that the Irish Members in the other House have regarded this matter with strong resentment, and the worst of it is that they are putting the blame for what the noble Earl has done upon your Lordships' House. What is being said is that this is simply the doing of the House of Lords, and another instance of the traditional hostility of this House to I Ireland. I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl will reconsider this proposed Amendment. We have already had his assurance that it was merely provisional. I assume that it is rather more than that, and I hope the noble Earl will give his very careful attention before the Bill comes up again to the question of restoring Ireland. The other Amendment to which I should have to take exception is the Amendment to Clause 17; but, if we are not going to discuss these Amendments, clause by clause, I need not go into that point. I now come to the Amendments which have been suggested by other noble Lords. First of all there is the proposal of my noble friend, Lord Mayo. I am afraid that his is an Amendment which I should be obliged to object to. It is framed on the analogy of the law relating to motor cars. That is a very misleading analogy. There is no similarity whatever between the duties of chauffeurs and trained nurses. If you were to do as the Amendment proposes and endorse a nurse's certificate, that would be the end of her career. Supposing a nurse does commit an offence which would render her deserving of being struck off the register, that would be done by the council to be established by this Bill. The effect of the Amendment, therefore, would be to take cut of the hands of the council this duty of maintaining discipline, and to put it into the hands of the Civil Courts. I hold, therefore, that the Amendment is out of harmony with the scheme of the Bill as amended by the Government, and one which ought not to be accepted. The argument used by Lord Stanley of Alderley that no registration would prevent a nurse becoming unfit is old and exploded. Nobody claims that it would. Registration would imply only that at a stated time a nurse had received a certain amount of training and had passed an examination. In no profession is registration claimed to be a guarantee of continuing efficiency. Barristers, for instance, may be unable to keep up their knowledge of the new laws introduced by Parliament, yet they retain their qualification. Similarly, doctors may not be able to keep up with the advance in medical science, but their registration holds good. In the case of nurses there is another consideration, and it is that the training of the nurse is really a matter of technical skill, and technical skill once acquired by long and laborious training is a thing that you cannot lose altogether. To use a popular illustration, it is very much like skating, or swimming, or riding. Once learned you never forget it, although there may be twenty years of want of practice and disuse. My noble friend suggested that one of the arguments in favour of the Bill was that it would be a panacea for every kind of evil. I do not think that has been claimed by any of the advocates of State registration. The noble Lord made some further suggestions on the subject of inspection, but I think it must have escaped his attention that the Bill provides that the council shall have power to appoint inspectors if and when that course should be necessary. I do not think I need say anything further except to express once more my gratitude to the noble Earl for the very generous way in which he has treated me with regard to this Bill. I fully appreciate the fact that he has given it most careful attention, and has sought to make it a workable measure at a time when he is overwhelmed with a great deal of other important business. I am certain I can speak for all those who are so earnestly advocating State registration when I say that this action on his part will be fully recognised and duly appreciated, and I think it is a good augury for the future and a reason for confidence that this Bill, in spite of what has been said by one or two noble Lords this evening, may even pass into law before the present Session comes to an end.

My Lords, I think perhaps the most important circumstance in reference to this Bill which has taken place to-night has been the speech of the noble Earl the Leader of the House. There were not very many of your Lordships present when the Bill was read a second time, but those of us who had the advantage of being here listened to the speech on behalf of the Government on that occasion with a considerable amount of interest, for we did not quite know what line His Majesty s Government were prepared to take with regard to this Bill. The noble Earl, however, has made a much more definite statement this evening, and has indicated a much more definite attitude than he did on the Second Reading, because he has, on behalf of the Government, given notice of a large series of Amendments which very much vary the machinery and some of the principal provisions of the Bill. I do not know whether that indicates on behalf of the Government a more favourable attitude towards the Bill than they were disposed to take when it was last under consideration. If it were so, that would have considerable weight with me, because I think a Bill of this sort ought properly to be passed with the assent of the Government rather than by a private Member of your Lordships' House, although my noble friend has every right to be heard on a subject of this kind. As regards the debate this evening, I do not like to say anything which might disturb the harmony of your Lordships' proceedings, but I must express agreement with many of the criticisms of Lord Stanley of Alderley. I am afraid that many of your Lordships expect too much from this Bill. I listened to the speech of Lord Ampthill, in moving the Second Reading, with very great attention, and I expected that he would reveal to your Lordships a state of things showing that reform was urgently called for, and that he would be able to quote instances and adduce arguments which would show that without the registration of nurses great evils existed and would continue to exist. My noble friend, as he always does, made a very good speech, but he spoke under rather adverse circumstances. Many of your Lordships had left the House, intent, no doubt, upon business. It was about 8 o'clock, and there were comparatively few Members prepared to take part in the debate. Consequently it was quite evident that my noble friend cut his remarks much shorter than would have been the case had the circumstances been otherwise; but I am afraid the effect of it on my mind was that my noble friend did not make out his case—that is to say, he did not reveal any great evils under the present state of things which registration would do away with. He did undoubtedly quote certain scandals that had arisen, but it was pointed out by the noble Earl the Leader of the House on the Second Reading and it has been pointed out again to-day by Lord Stanley of Alderley that none of those scandals would be touched by the Bill.

I regret to interrupt the noble Marquess, but my object was to show, not so much that there were evils to be remedied, as that there were improvements to be affected.

I am very glad to have elicited that interruption from my noble friend. I understand, then, that he admits there are no great evils at the present moment which his Bill will remedy, but that there are improvements which the Bill will effect. That is an important statement.

If my noble friend is going to treat this as an important statement, I should like to say that I did not state that there were no evils. I said my object was more to dwell upon the advantages which would result from the Bill than on the evils which it would remedy. But there are evils, of course.

Then the evils remain a mystery. The noble Lord thinks that great improvements may result from the Bill. I am not disposed to deny that there may be improvements resulting from the Bill. The noble Lord cited a great weight of authority which he said was in favour of the measure; but I think my noble friend will have recognised by this time that the universal character which he attributed to that support was overstated, for many eminent doctors and others engaged in the training of nurses are opposed to the Bill. I do not deny that there may be improvements resulting from this Bill, but I agree with Lord Stanley of Alderley that the improvements can be very much exaggerated. The truth is that it is impossible to test by means of an examination whether a woman is a good nurse or not. That I have on high authority, and I believe it to be true. No doubt technical qualifications are necessary, but they are not all that is necessary for a good nurse. Indeed they are not the chief part of what is necessary for a good nurse. I heard my noble friend say just now that nursing was like skating, or any other technical accomplishment, which could never be forgotten. I do not think a more misleading statement could be made. The essence of nursing is a matter of continual practice That is what makes a first-rate nurse and nothing else. It is not like the case of a doctor. You send for a doctor; he gives his opinion, and that is the end of the matter.

What about the prescription?

No doubt he writes a prescription, if the noble Lord thinks that an important correction. But the qualifications of the nurse are much more important than the technical skill winch an examination is designed to ascertain. Her attention is continuing by day and by night. It is in her practice, her conduct, and her temperament, that her most important qualifications are to be sought. While, therefore, I agree that technical skill is essential and that an examination is useful for the purpose of testing technical skill, I submit that you have not then ascertained whether the nurse is a good nurse or not. Therefore, I think the benefits to be derived from this Bill may easily be exaggerated. But if His Majesty's Government and your Lordships think that it is well that the technical qualifications of a nurse should be the subject of registration, I certainly should not desire to oppose that view. The Amendments which the Government have placed on the Paper seem to me to be valuable Amendments, and the few months which will be available before the Bill comes before us again will be useful in securing that a successful and advantageous measure should be the result of the deliberations in your Lordships' House.

My Lords, I think we shall all agree that some improvement has been made by the Amendments which His Majesty's Government proposes to insert, but I do not think they remove the very great blots which are in the Bill. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill adopted the argument, Once a nurse always a nurse. He said they could not forget their qualifications. I venture to think that would not be endorsed by those in charge of many of our large nursing establishments; and before the Bill is again taken in the autumn your Lordships will probably receive information which will lead you to change your mind and not allow the Bill to go through in its present form. The Bill, even with these Amendments inserted, does not prevent unqualified women from calling themselves nurses and continuing to practice. We shall still have those who are not competent practising as nurses. The only thing is that they will not be able to call themselves registered nurses. Other Amendments will be required in order that hardship may not be done to district nurses. I understand that the period of training in Ireland is only two years. If, therefore, all the nurses in Ireland are to be declared unqualified and uncertificated, that will be a very undesirable state of things. Then I do not think the case of district nurses is entirely protected; and I believe a large number of the best nurses in our largest hospitals are strongly opposed to registration. Even as amended, the Bill is, in many respects, very unsatisfactory, but I hope that, by the provision of further Amendments, it will be made of benefit to all nurses and not merely to a few.

; My Lords, I beg to move the insertion of the new subsection standing in my name on the Paper. It deals with the Amendment of the schedule and increases the power possessed at present of modifying the schedule, which, as pharmacology progresses, is often found a valuable power to possess. The Pharmaceutical Society agree to this Amendment, and I think it is desirable in the interests of the public. It is important to mention that it does only refer to the schedule, and does not affect the substances mentioned in Clause 2 and Clause 5.

I think the Amendment a prudent and wise one as it leaves power for elasticity. With regard to the question of extending the schedule to Ireland, I am in correspondence on that subject. I feel there is force in what the noble Earl said or the last occasion, that if I left the matter as it is full power would rest with the authorities in Ireland to adapt the schedule as far as they thought right and graft it on to their own. If I find that that commends itself to those who are most concerned, I will leave the matter as it is.

The next Amendment is in Clause 3, page 3, line 5, after subsection (2) to insert the following new subsection:—

"(3) A registered chemist or druggist may notwithstanding anything in Section 15 of the Pharmacy Act, 1868, take, use, or exhibit the name or title of pharmacist."

This is a matter which really only concerns the registered chemists themselves. By Section 15 of the Act of 1868 this title of pharmacist is reserved to pharmaceutical chemists—that is to say, those who have passed the higher examination of the Pharmaceutical Society. Now, as we know, the title of chemist and druggist is treated no longer as a professional title, but as a trade term, and, therefore, it is desired by the Pharmaceutical Society for the lower class of registered chemist to be able to use the title of pharmacist. The higher class will call themselves pharmaceutical chemists or pharmaceutists. This is desired by the Pharmaceutical Society as differentiating those who have passed even the lower examination from those who are not chemists and druggists, and I think it may very fairly be accepted.

I have no objection to the insertion of these words, but perhaps the noble Earl will consider whether the extension of this to Ireland is not a matter upon which he would like to have some opinions.

My Lords, this is a very short and simple Bill, and one which I think will command the support of all Members of your Lordship's House. The only operative clause is the first clause, which provides that any person who takes or attempts to take any wild bird by means of a hook or other similar instrument shall be guilty of an offence, and shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding 40s. and for a second or subsequent offence to a penalty not exceeding £5. The case for the Bill is this, that in severe winters a great many of our smaller birds—thrushes, blackbirds, starlings, and birds of that type—congregate near the sea in some of the milder districts of the West of England and Wales. It has been brought to the notice of those who are interested in the preservation of wild birds that a system of catching these birds by means of hooks has grown up in certain places on the coast. A well-known naturalist, who was an eye-witness of what was taking place, records that in the hard winter of 1906 birds were driven down to the coast; and not only did large numbers of them perish of cold and hunger in the fields—which, of course, it is impossible to prevent—but many were driven close to the haunts of population, and some of those who desired to catch them scraped small portions of land free from snow, and by means of baited hooks took a considerable number of birds. The account given is one which cannot possibly fail to awaken sympathy. The description supplied by eye witnesses is to the effect that so blind to danger were the birds made by hunger that they were not deterred by the frantic struggles of those already hooked. It seems to me that there is nothing but undiluted cruelty in this method of taking small wild birds. I do not think it is widely taken advantage of, and I am certain it is contrary to the wishes and the feeling of the great majority of the population; but, under the present state of the law, they are powerless to prevent it. I um advised that this Bill will prohibit the practice altogether, and I hope your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.

My Lords, I have to say that His Majesty's Government are not only willing but anxious to do all they can to assist the noble Lord in passing this Bill; and I am quite sure the Scottish Office will also assist in expediting its progress.

who had a series of Amendments on the Paper, explained that they had been drafted to meet a point raised by the Local Government Board. The Public Health Act of 1874, gave to the Local Government Board power to grant Provisional Orders to urban authorities in respect of gas undertakings under the Gas and Water Works Facilities Acts of 1870 and 1873. The procedure of those Provisional Orders was laid down by those Acts. The clauses containing the Regulations would be repealed by this Bill. It was, therefore, proposed in this series of Amendments to extend to the Local Government Board the same powers of making Rules for Procedure in respect of Provisional Orders as were being given to the Board of Trade by the Bill. He begged now to move the first Amendment, but in order to meet any possible opposition from noble Lords opposite to the extension of this principle to other Government Departments, he would like to call attention to the next Amendment which stood in his name, which, he thought, would be found to preserve absolutely the control of Parliament over the rules to be made under the Bill.

then moved the second Amendment to-which he had alluded. It was, he said, designed to meet the point raised by Lord Salisbury in the Amendment which the noble Marquess had on the Paper. The noble Marquess was not in his place, but he (Lord Hamilton) had been authorised by him to say that he was willing to accept this Amendment in lieu of the one standing in his name on the Paper. He thought it would be found that by this Amendment the control of Parliament over the rules of procedure was absolutely secured.

said that, in the opinion of the Board of Agriculture, there was no doubt as to the power of altogether prohibiting entire animals from being turned out; but, if the noble Viscount thought there was, he was prepared to accept the Amendment.

said the noble Lord's Amendment was an improvement, and he was quite ready to accept it.

thought the object of the noble Lord would be met by the next Amendment, which stood in his (Earl Carrington's) name. Perhaps, therefore, the noble Lord would withdraw the Amendment.

did not think the noble Earl's words would be any improvement on the Bill as it stood. They wished to do away altogether with the mentioning of any particular condition. The condition in question was necessarily included, and they were afraid that to mention it specifically might lead to the supposition that others were excluded.

asked whether the noble Lord was perfectly certain that his point was not met by the next Amendment.

said he was advised that it was not.

said that, in the opinion of the Board of Agriculture, there was no doubt on the point.

accepted this assurance, and withdrew the Amendment.

who had given notice of an Amendment expressly giving power of "forbidding any such animals to be upon the common," said he would not move this Amendment if the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture was quite satisfied that there was ample power in the clause as amended to forbid altogether entire animals being placed upon the common.

said he believed the noble Viscount's point was absolutely met.

said that, in those circumstances, he would not move the Amendment.

said that as the clause stood power was given for raising only such sums as might be necessary for enforcing the regulations. He moved to insert words to enable the expenses incurred in making and publishing the regulations to be defrayed. He thought this cost should be provided for.

accepted the Amendment.

accepted the Amendment.

expressed the hope that the noble Lord would not press the Amendment. It was quite true that outside persons were under the common law, but he did not think the words in the clause would be likely to press hardly on anybody. The mischief done would be the same whether it was done by an outsider or by a person who had common rights. Almost the only persons who would come under the clause would be travelling gipsies and tinkers with their jackasses, and as so much damage had been done in the past he hoped the Amendment would not be insisted upon.

said that many other animals strayed on commons besides gipsies' jackasses; and, if the noble Earl did not wish the words in his Amendment inserted, better provision should be made for making the regulations known to outsiders.

hoped the Amendment would not be pressed, as it would weaken the hands of the commoners in dealing with this matter.

admitted that it was quite true that the matter was one of domestic concern. But when the subject was first brought forward by a deputation introduced to him by Lord Kenyon, the original proposal was that the county councils themselves should make the regulations without the assent of the commoners. It was thought, however, that that would not be the best way to go to work, and that the commoners should move in the matter themselves. At the same time, although county council might not, as the noble Lord had truly said, have any locus standi, it would be a pity to cut them out altogether and not give them a chance of backing up the lord of the manor and the commoners in their desire to rid the common of these animals. That was all the power they would have, and he hoped the noble Lord would not press the Amendment.

opposed the Amendment on the ground that if the matter was left to the commoners themselves, in many cases nothing would be done. He thought it of advantage that there should be a second authority, and hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn.

said the County Councils Association had nothing whatever to do with the introduction of the county councils into this provision. He did not think the county councils were at all anxious to have powers given them with regard to matters with which they had nothing whatever to do. The county councils had no power to regulate the turning out of entire animals and had no entire animals to turn out; but if there was any reason for the insertion of this provision he had no objection.

inquired whether the county council would have any locus standi at the meeting when it had been summoned by the Board of Agriculture at the instance of the county council. He did not see anything in the Bill providing for that.

thought the words might with advantage be left in. The provision was simply that a meeting for the purposes of the Act might be convened in respect of any common upon the application of any three persons entitled to turn out animals upon the common, or of the council of the county in which any part of the common was situated.

again expressed the hope that the Amendment would be withdrawn. He thought that if county councils would occasionally take charge of such things as the improvement of the breed of animals it would be for the mutual benefit of the people concerned.

agreed. But no power of this kind was given to county councils by the Bill. All that the county councils were enabled to do was to ask the Board of Agriculture to call a meeting.

understood that the object of the provision was to provide for cases where, for private or other reasons, the commoners themselves were unwilling to do their duty. The Government thought it would be desirable to give an alternative power of setting the machinery in motion, and the county councils were inserted with that object. He would remind the House that since the passing of the Local Government Act, 1888, such a provision was quite an ordinary thing in cases where minor local authorities or other statutory bodies declined to exercise the powers which Parliament had conferred upon them as a trust for the public advantage.

did not wish to be misunderstood. He had no objection to county councils being left in; he merely wished to make it clear that it was not at the suggestion of the county councils themselves that they were put in.

could not help thinking that, in the circumstances, their Lordships would do well to retain the words as they stood. Lord Belper, who spoke with great authority on behalf of the county councils, did not raise any objection to conferring this power upon them. On the other hand, it was quite conceivable j that there might be cases where the commoners ought to avail themselves of the powers conferred by the Bill, but did not do so, and in such cases it might be very desirable to fall back on the county council, and allow the county council to move the Board of Agriculture to put the Act in operation.

said that no doubt the details of the schedule had been considered, but perhaps the noble Lord would say more definitely what the repeals were.

replied that the Bill affected certain existing Acts, and the Amendment standing in his name repealed those portions of existing Acts which were unnecessary.

thought that in the Bill before the Committee referential legislation was carried to the maddest point that ever was known, But Bill recommitted to the Standing Committee, and to be printed as amended. (No. 168.)

did not think the Amendments in any way jeopardised the usefulness of the Bill; on the other hand he thought they added to its usefulness.

said that when he moved the Second Reading of the Bill he ventured to say some small Amendments would be required. Of these that proposed was one, and he had much pleasure in accepting it.

thought the noble Lord restricted the clause more than was contemplated by the promoters of the Bill. The clause as amended would, as he understood it, restrict that portion entirely to vehicles.

I sympathise with the noble and learned Lord in not wishing to see words which may lead to an undue application of this clause, but I cannot help thinking that his words are a little too narrow and restricted. The point is that no person is obnoxious except one who, being drunk, endangers the life or limb of any person. That is a condition which applies to every case, and if you get the conditions of a man being drunk and endangering the life or limb of somebody else you need not be too particular as to whether he has a wheelbarrow, or a vehicle or anything else. I cannot help thinking it might be well if the noble Lord would be good enough to withdraw this and consider whether some words a little less narrow than his own might be suggested.

agreed to the suggestion.

This is a Bill, as its name implies, to improve the housing of the working classes in Ireland. Parliament in recent years has so often confirmed this principle in legislation that I think it is hardly necessary for me at this late hour to deal with that point. But there are special reasons why legislation is urgently needed at this time in Ireland to deal with this matter. First of all, whilst in England in recent years Acts of Parliament have been passed, and whilst, as your Lordships are aware, there is a Bill in another place which will affect housing in England, yet the last important Act that was passed for Ireland was so long ago as 1890; it is true there was a minor Act in 1896 but that of 1890 was the last of importance. Therefore it seems to me that Ireland has some cause for complaint of being excluded in this particular direction. Another reason is that many Irish towns are poor and are highly rated, and unless they are able to receive such financial assistance as is contemplated in this Bill they will be unable to adopt any efficient housing scheme. Thirdly, some Irish towns are—it is regrettable but it is, I am afraid, too true—in a decaying condition. Houses which were formerly occupied by well-to-do people are now occupied by people much less well off and are used as tenements, and are inhabited, I am informed, in some cases by as many as twelve and thirteen families. This brings me to the question of overcrowding, which is a serious evil in the towns of this country, but is, I venture to say, a far more serious evil in towns in Ireland. I would like to quote one or two figures which deal with this point. In Manchester, for example, the per-percentage of one-room tenements occupied by five or more persons is ·04 per cent., in London ·57 per cent., and in Dublin, 8·69 per cent. You will gather from those figures that in this respect Dublin is about fifteen times worse off than London; and as we all know the condition of some of the slums in London leaves very much to be desired, these figures give some idea of what the slum areas in Dublin must be. Again, according to the 1901 census there were in Ireland 79,149 tenements of one-room, and in 5,587 of these one-room tenements seven or more persons resided. In Dublin 40·6 per cent, of the population occupied overcrowded dwellings. These, my Lords, are, I think, rather terrible figures and themselves make out an urgent case for legislation to deal with the question. Another point is the alarming increase in Ireland of the disease of tuberculosis, and although, no doubt, a great deal maybe clone, and is being done, by the erection of sanatoria and hospitals, by open-air treatment and other methods of combating the disease, yet prevention is always better than a cure, and it is far better to prevent this disease, which must be spread by the slum areas such as I have just described, at its source than to rely on the remedial measures of which I have spoken. Those are only a few reasons why this Bill is needed in Ireland. Now I come to the objects of the Bill. The objects are two-fold. The first is to give financial assistance to local bodies to enable them to provide better housing for the working classes. The second is to amend the procedure to be followed by those local authorities under the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890. The first of these objects is attained by getting the sum of £80,000 in cash and £100,000 in Consols from the dormant, portion of the Irish Suitors Fund. This is to form an Irish Housing Fund which is to be invested, and the interest will be given to local authorities to help them to meet the cost of carrying out schemes. The second object is attained by extending the provisions of two English Housing Acts, the Acts of 1900 and 1903, to Ireland. I should like to remind the House that this Bill received the unanimous assent of all parties in another place; that Ulster Members and Nationalists vied with each other in giving it a warm welcome and, I understand, in claiming credit for it. There were, it is true, some criticisms passed upon the financial clauses of the Bill, but those clauses have since been remodelled in Committee. They are now of a much more modest character than as originally introduced, and I hope that they may meet with the approval of the House. If, as we continue the discussion of the Bill, difficulties arise I hope they will be such as are capable of being easily adjusted. There has been an example of what can be done in Ireland, and that example has been furnished by a Member of your Lordship's House, Lord Iveagh, in erecting dwellings for workmen. Not only has Lord Iveagh erected, I believe, excellent dwellings for the workmen employed by his firm, but he has gone further, than that and in Dublin he has erected many dwellings for the working classes generally. What we hope to be able to do by this Bill is to give local authorities and possibly private persons facilities which will enable them to follow the, example which has been set by the noble Viscount to whom I have just alluded. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

I am sure that everyone who knows Ireland will sympathise with the object of this Bill, for although something may have been done within the last few years, everyone who has travelled much in Ireland must have been struck, in the smaller towns especially, with the condition of the dwellings of the working classes. That condition cannot be characterised as anything less than deplorable, and everyone who is acquainted with such dwellings must wish that steps could be taken to remedy this great evil. But in this, as in all Other matters connected with the relief of distress among the lower classes, care must be taken that necessary economy is practised and that no undue burden shall be thrown on the rates, a great deal of which is paid by people in very narrow circumstances. It hardly seems to me that His Majesty's Government have taken this consideration duly into account in accepting the Bill now before the House. There are several provisions in it of rather a striking character. In Clause 2 the limitation imposed on the borrowing powers of local authorities for the purposes of the Housing of the Poor Acts, by the Public Health Act of 1878 has been removed, and, therefore, it would appear that the local authorities, for the purpose of this Bill, are able to borrow to an unlimited amount. To borrow on easy terms is, no doubt, a great temptation to local authorities in Ireland as well as in other countries. It is, therefore, very much to be feared that local authorities would be induced, partially by the most praiseworthy motives, and partially by pressure put upon them, to put an undue burden on the rates. I think we ought to be furnished with a statement in the case of these local authorities as to what amount has been already borrowed, what the limit imposed was, and what balance now remains on which they could borrow. There is another matter which requires attention. In Clause 9 there is a provision exempting all premises, for the purposes of this Bill, from the payment of rates. A proviso to that clause was, I think, inserted on the motion of the Attorney-General for Ireland that this could only be done with the consent of the Local Government Board, and that is, to a certain extent a safeguard. But I would point out that the Local Government Board cannot have the accurate local knowledge needed, and exempting any people or any premises from the rates appears to me to be a very novel and a very strange proceeding. It also appears to me that it would not be to the ultimate benefit of the members of the working classes who happened to occupy a house so exempted. If such a house had been built by some speculative builder on land held from the local authority, the fact of the tenant being exempted from paying rates would probably seem to him a reason why that tenant should pay a higher rent. Therefore, he would gain, and the rates would suffer. With the principle of the Bill I am in the warmest sympathy, but I think it requires amendment on the points to which I have called attention.

I have nothing to say to the manner in which the noble Lord introduced this Bill, but I have something to say as to the manner in which it was introduced in another place. The Bill was introduced by Mr. Clancy, and was taken up by the Government, and is what is called a starred Bill. Some of the arguments which the noble Lord used with regard to slums in Dublin, I notice by reference to Hansard, were used by Mr. Clancy. But I must remind the noble Lord of what he said with regard to everybody consenting about a Bill. I put forward that argument the other day when talking of the 1903 Land Act, and I was met by the noble Earl who leads the House by the statement that when everybody consented we have to be somewhat sceptical as to the working of a measure, and we on this side of the House from Ireland begin to be a little sceptical upon that point in regard to this Bill. The noble Lord talked about the financial assistance that was to be given under the Bill. With regard to the Fund of Suitors in the Supreme Court and other funds, the real truth is that it amounts to between £5,000 and £6,000 a year. I do not think that will help the local authorities very much to build houses. I should like to draw attention to another point in the Bill. I do not think in this matter valuation ought to enter into the question at all. I may point out that under Clause 7, where a local authority has adopted Part III of the Act of 1890, they may for supplying the needs of their district, either establish or acquire lodging-houses for the working-classes outside their district. Now what would that enable the local authorities to do? It would enable them to build labourers' cottages in Rathmines and Pembroke, which are townships outside Dublin. I do not wish to say anything that may be in the back of the minds of Nationalist Members of Parliament, but the real truth of the matter is that if that were allowed to take place it would alter the Parliamentary representation of the South Dublin constituency. That is rather an important point. There are some other points that require consideration. I should like to draw your attention to Clause 9, which proposes to enable the very person who created the rates to get themselves excused from paying them. I think, my Lords, that would require amending. For instance, I should say that the rate should not be imposed on the owner interested in the premises if he could prove that he was not to blame for their becoming occupied by persons not belonging to the working-classes. Again, it seems quite unfair that the local authority should be enabled to impose such a liability without there being a right of appeal from their decision. I think that that argument is understood by the noble Lord opposite. I quite recognise that the Local Government Board will have a say in this matter. We all respect the Local Government Board very much in Ireland, but when they have the power to build labourers' cottages under this Bill outside Dublin, and that fact alters the status of the voters in the Parliamentary division, I begin myself to think there is rather more in the Bill than that which the noble Lord impressed so much upon us in his opening speech. For that reason I should like, now that I have the opportunity, to move for a Return for the loans contracted by the local authorities in Ireland. I have given notice to the noble Earl, the Leader of this House that I should make this Motion. Such a Return, dealing with England and Wales, was moved for by Mr. Forster on 14th April this year, in the House of Commons, and the Return was presented and ordered to be printed yesterday; therefore, I think I have a precedent for this Motion. I trust, if I am in order, I may move for it to-day, and, if not, I give notice that I shall, at some future date, move for the Return.

My Lords, anyone who knows anything about Ireland and about the progress of this Bill and debates that have taken place in reference to it, and has listened to the speech of the noble Lord who presented if for your Lordships' acceptance, will realise that this is not only a subject of interest and importance, but one that must command the sympathy of every person who approaches the question with the desire to remedy what is a grave evil. It is impossible not to desire to benefit the working-classes who are subjected to the necessity of living in unhealthy and overcrowded residences, and one would naturally welcome any Bill that proposed to give relief and to remedy such a state of things. Therefore, everyone will recognise that it is not likely that there will be any opposition offered to the proposal to read this Bill a second time. Of course, when we come to another stage it will be necessary to examine some of the clauses to see whether they have been framed with adequate caution, and whether some safeguards and prudential considerations should not be borne in mind before the measure finally leaves your Lordships' House. There is no Treasury aid given to this Bill, which causes, of course, a difficulty about its finance. Usually one expects to get some little assistance from the richer partner, and that some monies will be forthcoming to eke out our more scanty resources; but in this Bill all that is done is to give a power to pass without check the borrowing powers that exist in towns in Ireland—without check and with very little security. Of course, this is a matter requiring examination in Committee. The method of finance is not wide, yet I do not know that it is wide enough. I have no doubt that the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland has seen that the clauses as to the Suitors' Fee Fund were framed in such a way as to safeguard the monies to be taken. I assume that he has been consulted in reference to this matter, and that he has made such suggestions as he thinks right to see that the advances made are duly guaranteed by the Consolidated Fund. On that assumption I say no more about it except this: I am not aware—I do not say it is an objection of serious importance, but it is a matter to be noted—that the Suitors' Fee Fund has ever been called upon to make advances of this kind for such purposes. The other matters referred to by my noble friends who have spoken are matters which I have no doubt we shall hear of in the Committee stage, but having regard to the hour and the further opportunities, I pass them by. I see that Clause 9 has naturally attracted attention. It gives a novel power which everyone would like exercised in his own case of dispensing with the obligation to pay rates for nine or ten years. No doubt that will require attention. If you allow buildings, and give the people who build the power themselves of deciding that the buildings that they own, and have the control of, shall be free from rates—I admit subject to the control of the Local Government Board—it is obvious that that is a matter which needs caution and requires examination, and, therefore, the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will understand that although a Second Reading may be accorded the Bill, that does not imply that some of the clauses will not be fairly and reasonably examined when we come to a further stage.

If I may say one word in reply to some of the criticisms made, I should like to say that Clause 2, to which Lord Clonbrock took exception is similar to a clause in the English Act of 1903, and that Clause 7 is, I understand, identical with one in the English Act of 1900. With regard to Clause 9, which has come in for some criticism, I should have thought that its provisions were safeguarded by making it necessary to obtain the consent of the Local Government Board, and I was glad to hear form the noble Earl, Lord Mayo, the high tribute which he paid to the administration of the Department. With regard to the return for which he asked I think I can promise that we shall be able to give it to him.

My Lords, I think it is quite clear that this Bill is one which deserves the very close attention of your Lordships' House before we allow it to become law. It is not a Bill which owes its origin to any action on the part of his Majesty's Government. It is a private Member's Bill which they have taken up, and I venture to think that at many points it shows signs of insufficient consideration. The Bill was, as so many Bills are now, dealt with in the Standing Committee, and our opportunities of making ourselves acquainted with the arguments used for and against it are consequently limited. That the objects of the Bill are commendable objects I do not for a moment attempt to deny, and I am sure the House will do all it can to facilitate the efforts of His Majesty's Government to deal with the question of overcrowding in Ireland. But, when you come to the financial machinery, I think there is much that justifies uneasiness. The Bill, as I understand, enables these local bodies to borrow money outside the limits imposed on them by the Public Health Act. That is a considerable innovation. Unless I am mistaken, in the case of the Labourers (Ireland) Act there are strict financial limits, which borrowers are not allowed to exceed. In this case the councils to which this power of borrowing is given are in most cases dominated by members of the working classes. These bodies are given an unrestricted power of raising money, and, as has been pointed out, in Clause 9 of the Bill we find the extraordinary provision that these councils are allowed to relieve some of the very people who are instrumental in raising these loans. I do not desire to oppose the Second Reading, because I think that would be to create a mistaken view of our action in regard to this question; but I hope your Lordships will come to an understanding that further progress with the Bill shall not be made until after the holidays. The matter cannot really be one of extreme urgency. There is no prospect of very much business coming before us when we reassemble in October, and I think His Majesty's Government would do very well to consider in the meantime some of the criticisms which have been offered. I hope they will not only do that, but that they will supply the information for which my noble friend has asked—I mean information bearing upon the financial position of the local bodies concerned in this Act. If, therefore, we agree to the Second Reading, I hope it will be upon the understanding that the further stages of the Bill are not to be taken before the adjournment of the House.

I beg to ask the Government if the Returns connected with repairs and alterations of His Majesty's ships which the Secretary of State for the Colonies agreed to produce on the 1st April will be completed and published before Parliament reassembles in October.

In reply to my noble friend I think the Return he asks for was promised by the First Lord of the Admiralty. I have inquired when it will be ready, and I am informed that it will be ready for printing by next week. I hope to be able to lay it on the Table of your Lordships' House in the course of the next three weeks or a month.

rose to call attention to the Dairies, Cowsheds, and Milk Shops (Ireland) Order of 3rd February, 1908, made with respect to each local authority in Ireland under Section 34 of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1878, and to ask whether powers similar to those exercised by the Lord-Lieutenant can be exercised by the Local Government Board in England; and to inquire what powers the Board of Agriculture have to make tuberculosis a disease under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act; and to ask when the Government intends to introduce the promised legislation with respect to milk; and to move for a copy of the Irish Order of 1908, together with any correspondence addressed to local authorities in Ireland with respect to the said Order, either before or after the Order was made. The noble Earl said: My Lords, many months ago the President of the Local Government Board announced that he intended to bring in a Bill dealing with the question of milk supply, but the present session is drawing to a close, and nothing has been done or heard of the Bill. Now I venture to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that in Ireland a general Order has been made (not model regulations), but a general Order applicable to and to be carried out by every local authority in Ireland is not very different from a general Act of Parliament applicable to the whole country. I am anxious to know whether the Local Government Board's attention has been called to what has been done in Ireland, and, if so, whether they can inform us whether it is necessary to bring in a Bill, and, if so, when they intend to bring in the Bill and what the nature of that Bill is going to be. I think that in all probability the answer will be that it cannot pass into law during the present session, but even if that be so I think we are entitled to know what are the terms of the measure. It might be very well introduced, if not in the other House, in your Lordships' House. We might be given the opportunity of considering the measure we have been promised and on the faith of which a number of clauses were withdrawn from certain private Bills which dealt with this question in their special areas. I presume that the main object of the Bill will be to diminish the disease of tuberculosis, and I am anxious to know whether the Board of Agriculture cannot do something towards scheduling that disease and treating it in the same manner that they have treated pleuro-pneumonia, cattle-plague, and other diseases that have been stamped out in this country. I am quite aware that in 1889 an Order in Council was made making tuberculosis of the udder a disease under the Prevention of Diseases Act, but that only deals with animals absolutely dangerous to health and does not deal with the question of stamping-out tuberculosis from the herds of this country. I also ask the noble Lord whether the Government will lay upon the Table of the House the Order that has been made by the Local Government Board in Ireland together with a number of very interesting and valuable communications which have been addressed by the Irish Local Government Board to the different local authorities in Ireland, because I think they will form some useful guidance to those of us who are interested in this question, and who are anticipating the introduction of the measure, which I venture to say is long overdue.

My Lords, the question which the noble Lord has raised is, at all events in the form in which it is put down, a sort of omnibus question affecting several Government Departments of both England and Wales, but I will endeavour to answer his Question briefly and to the best of my ability. The noble Lord is well aware of the various Acts that have been passed and the Orders that have been made—more so, I think, than I am. Various Acts of Parliament giving powers to the Privy Council and afterwards transferring them to the Local Government Board have brought about the present position. The original Order of 1885, which was made by the Privy Council, is still in force in England and Wales, and this has been supplemented by certain further Orders issued by the Local Government Board in 1886 and 1899, to which I think the noble Lord referred. I have no doubt many of your Lordships are, and I am quite sure Lord Onslow is, familiar with these Orders. The noble Lord asks three questions. First he asks whether powers similar to those exercised by the Lord-Lieutenant can be exercised by the Local Government Board in England. I may perhaps first of all say that there is a difference between the new Irish Order to which the noble Lord has referred and the Orders in force in this country, and the main difference is that the Irish Order incorporates and applies generally requirements which in England and Wales are dealt with by regulations made by the local authorities. The result is that in Ireland these requirements are made uniform and of universal application. In some respects also they are more exacting than those of the model regulations of the English Local Government Board. Then the noble Lord asks whether powers similar to those recently exercised in Ireland can be exercised by the Local Government Board in England, and that I rather take it is the main point of his question. The answer to this is in the affirmative. As the noble Lord knows, there is the General Act of 1878, giving certain powers to the Privy Council. These powers under a more recent Act have been transferred to the Local Government Board, and I may say that the Board have had before them the question of amending the existing Orders somewhat in the direction proposed, but have deferred doing so for the present in prospect of some general legislation to which the noble Lord has referred and has very justly said has been promised. I cannot say when the legislation on the subject of milk will be introduced, but the Government have it under consideration. I believe the Bill is in a forward state, and it is hoped it will be introduced in the autumn, but as regards that I cannot give the noble Lord a direct and distinct pledge. One part of the noble Lord's Motion deals with the question of the powers of the Board of Agriculture, which is really a matter for that Department, and I venture to think that the noble Lord having been President of the Board probably knows the powers of the Board. But I am advised that under Section 22 of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, the Board of Agriculture have power to schedule tuberculosis as a disease for all or any of the purposes of the Act. As regards Lord Onslow's question as to the Irish Order, I perceive that my noble friend Lord Denman is here, and, I believe, is prepared to answer that question. He tells me, however, that the Return will be given and also the correspondence for which the noble Lord has asked.

I cannot say that the reply of the noble Lord has enlightened us very much as to the milk supply legislation. As Lord Onslow pointed out, it is now more than three months since the President of the Local Government Board told us that legislation was going to be brought in, and the Minister for Agriculture so long ago as February last, in answer to a question I put to him in this House, informed us that it was the intention of the Government to deal with this matter during the present session. I cannot say that we know any more now on the matter than we did six months ago, and I think it is only reasonable for us to ask when we are likely to see this Bill and have the opportunity of considering the proposals. I hope the Local Government Board may be able to fall in with the suggestion of my noble friend and print this Bill and let us see what the proposals are. I think it would have been more satisfactory to many of us who take an interest in this question if we had been told what the Local Government Board have been doing in the matter during the last three or four months. We should like to have heard whether this matter has been seriously under the consideration of the Board and whether the Bill is yet drafted. I should also like to ask the noble Lord who represents the Local Government Board whether any communication has yet been made to the Board of Agriculture on the matter, and whether a draft Bill has been submitted to the Board of Agriculture. I should also like to express a hope that if that has not been done, before this matter is dealt with and the Bill is introduced, the draft Bill, or at any rate, that part of the Bill which deals with the production of milk on the farm, and the housing and, treatment of cattle, will be submitted for the consideration of the Board of Agriculture. The President of the Local Government Board, when he received a deputation from us not very long ago, told us that it was his intention, as I have no doubt it is, to deal equitably and fairly with the dairy farmers in the country, and, therefore, I think that it is not only desirable, but absolutely necessary that he should consult the Department who are best acquainted with the conditions of agriculture, and to whom the agriculturists in the country naturally look to guard them in this matter. I am only sorry that the noble Lord has not been able to give us further information than that which we have received this afternoon.

My noble friend who represents the Local Government Board in this House has already addressed your Lordships, and it is only for that reason that I rise to answer the further question, or rather the request for further information, which has just fallen from the noble Lord. What I would venture to point out to him is this: that in reality the main question which the noble Lord, Lord Onslow, has brought before your Lordships by the question which he has placed on the Paper relates rather to the difference in the working of the existing Dairy and Milkshops Order in Ireland and in England, than to the general question of milk supply, though I quite acknowledge he has mentioned it in the latter part of his question. The first question is esentially one which has always been dealt with by the Local Government Board and not by the Board of Agriculture, and to a certain extent the second also, because the private Bills which have hitherto dealt with certain aspects of this question go beyond the statutory provisions of the Orders made under the Contagious Diseases Animals) Act, 1878, to which you have to go back in these matters. These also are matters which have been hitherto dealt with by the Local Government Board in Bills which have nearly always gone before the Police and Sanitary Clauses Committee over which I had the honour to preside for some years, and that is also why I venture to say a few words on the subject. Now it appears from what has fallen from the noble Lord, Lord Onslow, who, no doubt, was correctly informed, and in that he has been confirmed by my noble friend, that the best legal opinion now is that a great number of things which have hitherto been divided between an Order arranged by the Local Government Board and regulations made under that Order by the local authorities in England and in Ireland, could undoubtedly be done, certainly in Ireland, because it has been done there, by Order alone. It will be seen by anybody who looks at the Order which is going to be laid before your Lordships' House that all the minute things which are done by the regulations of the local authorities in England are incorporated in the Order for Ireland, while if you look at the existing Order as it now runs in England, the main outlines are laid down and are left to be worked out for better or for worse—very often, unfortunately, for worse—by local authorities. The result has been that in some districts of England there has been efficient work, while in seine other districts there has been no practical working of the Act at all. No doubt that exists in Ireland even worse than in England, and the result has been that the Irish Privy Council, after taking counsel's opinion, came to the conclusion which I confess is new to me, and I have no doubt to most of your Lordships, that these matters which have hitherto been done by statutory regulation under the Diseases of Animals Act, could all be done by one fell swoop and one large comprehensive Order, which has been issued no doubt with excellent effect by the Irish Privy Council. The matter which the noble Lord brought before your Lordships was whether that could be done in England, if desirable. The answer I understand that has been given by my noble friend on behalf of the Local Government Board is that it could be done. Whether it is desirable is another thing, because nobody would deny that it is a very great act of centralisation, and I could quite imagine that local authorities which have rather sniffed at the notion of county councils being brought into the matter—they are at present entirely outside it—would be rather astonished to wake up one morning and find that the Local Government Board had issued one vast and comprehensive Order laying down rules and regulations for the whole of England, even with regard to details such as the amount of ventilation of cowsheds and the pits into which dung and manure are to be put. Another question which was put at the end of his inquiry by my noble friend was a far larger question as to what the intentions of the Government are with regard to milk legislation. That is an entirely different matter, because the questions relating to milk legislation have not been so much the exercise of the powers of local authorities as the claims of certain local authorities to exercise jurisdiction outside their own limits. That has been a great and burning question, because most of the great outbreaks of typhoid and other fell diseases, which have been traced to milk, have undoubtedly come out of the large towns and been transferred to other large towns and sometimes to country districts. That has been the question thrashed out for years before the Police and Sanitary Committee of the House of Commons. I was fortunate during my chairmanship with the help of the Chairman of Committees of your Lordships' House, the late Earl of Morley, to get certain model clauses agreed upon which worked for a considerable number of years, but several things have happened since then, and undoubtedly the question does require further legislation and the Government have undertaken to legislate. But it is, as I am sure the noble Lord will agree, an exceedingly difficult question, and it goes entirely outside the important, but far less important and less difficult question, whether or not one regulation should be made for the whole of England as it has been in Ireland under the old Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, because in the one case you can act by executive Order while in the other case you undoubtedly require strong and new general legislation.

rose to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War by whose authority officers of the Army were ordered to go to the Olympia and take part in the jumping competitions, and what notice was given to them; whether they were supplied with thoroughly trained horses or ordered to ride any horses supplied to them by the directorate of the show; and whether the expenses of these officers were paid by the War Office or by the directorate of the show.

The facts of this case so far as I know are that in June the directorate of the Horse Show at Olympia, when they found that there were not a large number of British officers competing, invited on their own initiative a certain number of British officers to enter. They mounted them on horses which had already been entered for the show, and the directorate paid their expenses. That was a thing which they very generously did, not only for British officers, but also, I believe, for a certain number of foreign officers. I think that supplies the information for which the noble Lord asks.

I beg to move for the following Return, of which I have given notice.

My Lords, I certainly know no reason why we cannot give the Return for which the noble Lord asks, but I should like to assent to it rather on this understanding, that if this Return takes a long time for us to produce, the noble Lord and his friends will not regard it as a necessary preliminary to the passing of the Bill they have read a second time to-night.