rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they propose to take administrative steps to stimulate the dairy industry and increase the use of liquid milk. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, it is my misfortune sometimes to find myself in disagreement with some of your Lordships as to the benefit of certain beverages, but I am certain that to-day there can be no difference of opinion as to the importance and benefit of stimulating, to the maximum extent, the use of liquid milk. It should be the prime food of children, and, as I see it, dairying should be made, to a greater extent than it is now, the cornerstone of agriculture and of the development of our agricultural policy. I understand that in this country the average consumption per head of milk is only about one-sixth of that of Sweden, and about one-third of that of the United States of America, and so there should be a large potential market for the dairyman. If the consumption of milk could be doubled it would be an enormous advantage to the children of this country, and also of great benefit to dairying and agriculture. The first point on which I hope the noble Lord will be able to give us information is whether the Government proposes to bring the Milk and Dairies (Consolidation) Act, 1915, into operation. Unless the Government decide to postpone it again it will come automatically into operation again this year, I believe in the month of September. I have never been a whole-hearted supporter of the whole of the proposals in that Act. I believe a great deal more could be done under the Act of 1922.

My Lords, I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, for bringing forward this very important question to-day, and I think the debate will be of the very greatest value to the producer and the consumer of milk, as well as to the nation as a whole. I do not believe that the community has begun to realise the importance of milk as a really vital human food. The noble Lord has already referred to the figures of the consumption of milk in other countries as compared with our own. Those figures speak for themselves. We cannot begin to tackle this question until we have endeavoured to increase the efficiency of the production and distribution of milk. I leave aside the question of cleanliness, because the noble Lord has dealt with that already in a manner that I could not hope to equal.

I will start with production. Looking at this matter from the point of view of the economist, the cow must be regarded as a machine for the manufacture of milk. Therefore, in so far as we are able to increase the efficiency of the cow, we shall be able to decrease the cost of the manufactured article. Looking at it from that point of view, we can see that the very first, thing we have to do is to increase the application of the Ministry's live stock improvement scheme. The two main bulwarks of any policy in this direction must be a scheme for the compulsory registration of bulls, and another scheme for the extension of the milk-recording movement. In regard to the registration of bulls, I understand the attitude of the Ministry is that while they favour the idea in principle, they feel that agricultural opinion in this country is not yet ripe for such a step. If that is so, I must confess that I find the attitude of the Ministry very puzzling.

What are the facts? The present Prime Minister, during the time of his last Government, appointed an Agricultural Tribunal of Investigation, which reported last year in favour of the introduction of a scheme. The executive of the National Farmers' Union have passed a resolution in its favour, and no less than fifteen county agricultural committees have passed similar resolutions. The bodies last named are of particular importance in this connection, because it is suggested that the necessary powers should be made permissive; that is, that they should be put into force at the will of the county agricultural committee. Therefore, the attitude of the Ministry is not that it is refusing to enforce tyrannical legislation on unwilling local bodies who can best claim to represent the agricultural interests of their localities; but it is refusing powers to local bodies which many of them have stated would be of enormous local value. I submit that the position of the Ministry-is hardly tenable, and I would ask the noble Lord to reconsider seriously the attitude hitherto taken up by his officials on this matter.

Turning now to the question of milk recording, a very great work has already been clone by the milk recording movement, and the Ministry can well look with pride upon all that they have accomplished in the past. But for the last two years, at any rate in the district in which I live, the movement has made extremely little progress. I do not believe that the society to which I belong has gained a single member during that period. In view of the tremendous success that this scheme has had among those who have adopted it, I would urge the Ministry to consider that phenomenon very seriously, and to try to see whether there is anything inherent in the scheme which seriously endangers its future development. Without venturing to dogmatise, I would suggest to the noble Lord a very simple and, I think, very obvious fact. The dairy industry in this country is divided broadly into two sections, those who produce milk simply and solely and have no interest in the selling value of their cattle, and, on the other hand, the breeders, either of pedigree stock or of stock which they wish to grade up to pedigree standard. On the whole, the present scheme is working very well for the breeder, and we find that, not only is the breeder willing to join us, but he has to join us if he is going to keep pace with his competitors.

If I might digress for a moment, even on this side of the scheme things are not quite satisfactory, for lately the Ministry of Agriculture has made it necessary to pay 5s. for every certificate of a cow's yield which has to be taken by the farmer. As a result of this imposition the number of cows registered has decreased enormously. Hitherto the farmer has paid his subscription to the society, and the Ministry of Agriculture has considered it to be worth while to make a grant to that society. Why not continue financing the scheme on a straightforward basis? Why, having made a grant, then proceed to introduce these petty impositions giving with the one hand and taking away with the other? I would ask the noble Lord whether he could not look into this matter, with a view to representing to the Treasury that this scheme is one that is far too important to play with in this way.

However, this is really a digression, for we are, on the whole, agreed that the scheme is working well for the breeder, but is not so working for the commercial o dairy farmer. He, as I have said, is not interested in a scheme that will increase the selling value of his stock. His calves are sent off to market when they are a few days old, and fetch what they will; his cows are sold to the butcher when they are too old to milk, and he does not need a certificate certifying the yield of a certain cow. What he wants is a system of recording that will be of use to him in his commercial work. He wants clerical assistance and advice as to how best to keep his records, and as to the best use to put them to when he has got them. He does not want careful checking. I would like to ask the noble Lord, therefore, whether it is not possible to devise a scheme which could be administered very much more cheaply, and which would, I venture to suggest, be very much more in accord with the needs of the commercial dairyman to-day. I put these suggestions forward very tentatively. The one thing I would urge is this. When he consults his officials at the Ministry let him not only consult those men who are always at the Ministry, but also those very faithful servants of the country who spend all their time amongst the farmers, his live-stock officers. Let him go even further than that. Let him see some of the secretaries of the societies, who are the men who have to approach the farmers and canvass them, and who hear what farmers themselves are saying to-day. I venture to predict that there, at any rate, he will find very considerable agreement with some of the suggestions that I have put forward.

After the efficiency of the machine, we come to the fuel of that machine. Before a ration is fed it has either to be produced on the farm or purchased elsewhere. Here I would like to ask the noble Lord a question. Can he tell us what is the view of the Ministry on the possibilities of the increased development of arable dairying in this country? Perhaps at the same time he could indicate to us the steps that they are taking to encourage research in this direction. I know that the noble Lord himself, with all his great enthusiasm and experience in agricultural matters, is interested in developments along these lines, and perhaps I may express a hope that he may be able to do something practical to impress upon the farmers of this country the possibilities of this system. If he does so, I think he will do considerable good in the direction of cheapening the production of milk. However much a farmer may produce on his farm, he has still to purchase very considerable supplies of cake and meals. I think we are all fairly generally agreed that the only way of cheapening cost in this direction is that the farmers themselves should get together in their own organisations, and do their own purchasing. As individuals they are powerless; as co-operators they can practically dictate their own terms. I am not going to dwell on this subject, as co-operation amongst farmers is a subject which well merits a debate to itself. It must suffice to point out that in so far as purchased foods are used in the production of milk the only way of cheapening cost in that direction is co-operative purchase by the farmers.

I turn now to distribution, and here I promise I will be very brief, and endeavour simply to put before your Lordships the views of my Party on this matter. The difficulty of the community to-day is, I think, as follows. Under the present system of private enterprise the community has to choose between two alternatives, either the inefficiency of competition—which, for instance, sends perhaps three carts to serve a street which one cart could equally well serve—or the tyranny of a trust. I myself retail my own milk, and therefore speak with a certain small experience in this matter. I can speak just as strongly against the alternative of competition as can any consumer. The wastage and the overlapping is appalling. I do not know that there are very many of your Lordships who would wish to see the whole country's supply of milk controlled by rings and monopolists. That is your only alternative under the present system of private enterprise. Surely we know too much of the operations of these bodies to wish to see them very much increased.

The only hope lies, in our opinion, here as in the other social problems, in the direction of Socialism. Economic events, not the theories of faddists, are driving us there. The Conservative Party have had in the last few days to adopt the Socialist conception of social insurance. I quite realise that my noble friends on the Liberal benches were the originators of the idea of insurance, and I do not wish to seem to attempt to take away any of the credit from them, but just as the Conservatives have had to adopt Socialism with regard to insurance so, we are convinced, they will have to adopt Socialism in the distribution of milk. First and foremost in our scheme come the great consumers' co-operative societies. At the present moment they are very nearly the largest individual organisations distributing milk. Socialism is the organisation of the people to control the essentials of life, and the consumers' co-operative societies most certainly come under that category. But where these societies are not operating we hope to see the municipalities undertaking the task, and here we welcome Clause 12 of the Conservative Government's Milk and Dairies (Consolidation) Act, which we hope will shortly be in operation. This clause makes the power of the municipalities quite clear on this matter. After all, there is no reason why a public authority should not retail milk, just as it retails gas and water. It is merely an extension of a principle that is almost universally accepted.

My remarks on the production and distribution of milk do not pretend to be comprehensive, but I have tried briefly to cover a few of the main points which seems to be the most urgent. To recapitulate, we say that the first step must be in the direction of increasing the efficiency of the cow by allowing only registered bulls to be used, and of extending the milk recording movement. Secondly, the food of the cow must be reduced in cost by increasing arable dairying in suitable districts and by the purchase of foodstuffs co-operatively. And lastly, we believe that the distribution of milk can only be carried out efficiently on socialistic lines through the consumers' co-operative societies or the municipalities.

My Lords, under the cover of the umbrella of the Question of the noble Viscount a considerable number of questions have been addressed to me, and I am quite sure your Lordships will agree that we have just listened to two very interesting and informing speeches. If I disappoint the two noble Lords, and particularly the noble Earl who has just spoken, in not answering very precisely all the questions they have addressed to me, they must forgive me. Although my anticipation was fairly voluminous, it has not been quite extensive enough to cover the large field over which they have ranged. Let me say at once that the Government recognise the extreme importance of the problem underlying the Question, and also the special claim which the noble Viscount himself has to speak on this subject. I have no doubt, as he himself adumbrated at the commencement of his speech, that your Lordships will have a much larger measure of sympathy with him in his opinions on this particular beverage than apparently you had on another subject on which he recently addressed you.

If the Ministry of Agriculture has during recent years appeared to shun taking any rapid or drastic action in relation to the supply of milk, it is for fear lest, in any endeavour to secure pure and disease-free milk for human consumption in this country, they might take steps which would tend to dry up the milk supply altogether, or bring about a milk famine; and a scarcity of milk, your Lordships will agree, would be a far more serious happening than the presence in some of our milk of a certain amount of dirt. The noble Viscount has referred to the relative consumption of milk in this country and certain other countries, notably the United States and Sweden. We have reluctantly to confess that, the consumption of milk here is very much less than it is in the United States, and considerably less than it is in some of the Continental countries. We all deplore the fact. We think that our children suffer in consequence. But it is no good passing drastic laws in relation to this or any other like subject if public opinion is not ripe to endorse them, and the sad fact is that in this country the general public is not sufficiently alive to the importance, particularly in the interests of their children, of pure and disease-free milk, and the farming community themselves are not sufficiently appreciative of the necessity, if they mean to be up-to-date in their methods compared with other countries, of eliminating from their herds unsound cattle, and in practising within their premises the cleanest possible methods of milk production and milk distribution.

The noble Viscount referred to the existing four grades into which milk is at present classified, and he has asked for some fresh classification. We are quite open to consider some new classification of milk, but you are met with this difficulty. Certified milk, which is the highest grade, Grade A (tuberculin tested) milk, which is the second grade, and Grade A, which is the third grade, represent at present no more than a fraction of one per cent. of the milk production of this country, and, if you are going to label milk as A, B, C and D you will find that by far the larger portion of the milk will unfortunately have to be labelled D. It would thus be quite impossible for those who desire any of the other descriptions of milk to obtain it, and, if it were available, to obtain it at prices which many of them could afford to pay. The first step which it seems to us must be taken in all these matters is to educate the general public and the farming community as much as you can with a view to improvement. Both noble Lords who have addressed you this afternoon seemed to be unconscious of what is being done in this direction, but I can assure them that a great deal is being done; in fact, considerably more than was the case two or three years ago.

Not only has there come into existence the National Milk Publicity Council, to which the noble Viscount referred, which is doing quite admirable work, and appears to be spending a considerable amount of money—money which I am sure is well spent—but through the medium of local authorities, county councils, education authorities, municipal bodies, and, indeed, through the schools, a great deal is being done to educate public opinion on these matters. If I remember aright they started their work with an advertisement campaign, which proved somewhat costly and was, in my judgment, a little bit difficult to justify. Of course, it is all very well to press upon the public that they must consume more milk, but what we want to be quite sure of—and in this matter we want to have the medical authorities behind us—is that the milk we are pressing the public to consume is really fit for human consumption. That can only be done by educating the milk producers in the direction of keeping sound cattle, and particularly of observing cleanliness in their cow-sheds.

In this connection many of the county councils are organising clean milk competitions, and in 1924 there were no fewer than twenty held in different counties, and no fewer than thirty are contemplated in the current year. All these competitions are of very high educative value. Information is now being provided by county education authorities on the same subject, and lectures are being organised from time to time for the instruction of children in the elementary and secondary schools as to the importance of milk, and the great importance of its cleanliness and purity. Instructors on this subject are at work to-day in no fewer than forty-eight counties, so that the noble Lord will agree that something material is being done to educate the farmers as well as the public in this matter.

I agree that it may be asked, as the Lord Chief Justice asked in a certain important action in the High Court yesterday, "What is milk?" Well, it is extremely difficult to say what milk is. In certain countries like the United States, it is very much easier to define milk than it is in this country. Is it a liquid obtained from the cow containing bacillus-coli, 100,000 bacteria to the salt-spoon, no bacillus-coli and containing 4½ per cent. fat, as is possible under our existing law? Or is it a liquid similar in appearance with less than 10,000 becteria per salt-spoon, no bacillus-coli and containing 4½ per cent. of butter fat? Obviously there is milk and milk, just as there are eggs and eggs. What we want to try and do is to level up the standard of milk, and be sure that no milk is purveyed to the public which is of low butterfat content and contains impurities especially manure.

It is significant to notice that, whereas the consumption of milk does not seem to have increased during the last few years, the production of milk has very considerably increased. I will not bore your. Lordships by going into figures, but the difficulty to-day is to know how effectively to dispose of surplus milk during the summer months, and the Ministry is doing its best to organise—or shall I say to persuade?—farmers to form organisations for the conversion of surplus milk during the summer months into cheese and other like products. There is also an attempt made to emphasise the high value of whey, which is very largely wasted at present when it comes from the cheese factories, for feeding pigs, for which it is very valuable, or for conversion into lactose or lacto-albumen and other medical preparations which come to-day from foreign countries.

I think the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, referred to the possibility of framing some model milk regulations which various local authorities might be asked to enforce within their areas. That is a matter which is under the serious consideration of both the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, but we are doubtful whether the time is ripe to take any such course. What we very much fear is that a very large number of small retailers would be driven out of business and, though such a course might in the long run be justified if on the other side there was any genuine public benefit to be obtained, we are somewhat doubtful on this point at the moment, until the standard of milk has been levelled up and good, pure milk is obtainable in larger quantities than it is to-day. On the subject of milk bottling we feel that compulsory bottling in this country is at present undesirable, for the reason that I have given—namely, that it would put out of business a considerable number of small people, without the quality of the milk being necessarily very much, if at all, better than that of the milk sold in the same areas to-day.

The noble Lord opposite referred to development of milk recording. Speaking for the Ministry, I can only say that the development of milk recording has far exceeded our anticipations of a few years ago. It is spreading all over the country, and the advantages to the farmer himself are becoming known to him, because he is enabled thereby to eliminate cattle which are not paying for their keep, and is able to produce his milk from his herd at a lower cost. It has been found that greater efficiency can be secured by the elimination of some of these very small milk recording societies, and so there are fewer of these societies than there were a few years ago, but there are very many more milk-recorded cattle and milk-recording farmers. The noble Lord opposite referred to scrub bulls. The question of how best to deal with scrub bulls is receiving the attention of the Minister, and he, like myself, is very anxious to see some action taken in the matter. It is undoubtedly very desirable to eliminate such bulls, which are doing a considerable amount of harm to the cattle of this country in perpetuating undesirable stock, but it is very questionable whether sufficient agricultural support can yet be obtained for any compulsory measure for eliminating scrub bulls. It is "up to" the agricultural community to help us in this matter, and those organisations who feel very strongly upon the subject would do well to pass resolutions or make it clear to us what their opinion is, because it is quite clear in a matter like this that it would be undesirable to act unless we had a very large weight of agricultural opinion behind us.

The noble Lord opposite also referred to the lack of support that is given to the ordinary commercial farmers in the matter of milk recording, and other like matters. I do not quite know what is the suggestion in the way of improving what is being done at the present time, but I can assure him a great deal is being done. The county agricultural organisers are doing admirable work to-day in advising the smaller dairy farmers as to the best methods of feeding their cattle with a view to milk production and also as to the best means of ensuring the production of clean milk. I know that it is dangerous to select any particular organiser for mention by name, but I should like to say that very admirable work is being done in this direction in Wiltshire. Perhaps I may be allowed to draw your Lordships' attention to sonic of the results of the work for which the gentleman whom I have in mind is responsible. He is encouraging a certain scheme of rationing cattle in a very large number of herds which are now under his supervision. These herds are both large and small, and the result of the scheme has been to increase the milk yield to the extent of anything from 30 per cent. to 60 per cent., with no appreciable additional expenditure on foodstuffs.

If your Lordships are interested in this subject I should like to have the opportunity of explaining to you in outline the main features of this system of rationing. It certainly makes it clear, as numerous farmers in Wiltshire will testify, that by the application of up-to-date science, which, after all, is very largely organised common sense, it is possible to produce milk a great deal more cheaply than it is produced to-day without any appreciable increase in the expenditure on foodstuffs. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Banbury must be very proud of the enlightened attitude of his county in this matter.

I hope that you will not register my bulls.

I might also mention that it is quite a mistake to suppose, as many people do suppose to-day, that perfectly pure milk cannot be produced in the ordinary farmer's cow-houses. I know that there is a tendency to say that you must entirely alter the fittings and equipment of cow-houses in order to produce clean milk, that you must provide more light and ventilation, that you must shorten the standings of the cows—no doubt these things are very desirable—and that you must install washstands and roller towels, and the like, in your cow-houses. All this is very desirable but, at the same time, it can be demonstrated, as, indeed, it is demonstrated at the National Dairy Research Station at Reading, that perfectly pure and wholesome milk can be produced, so long as the human factor performs its part, in the ordinary farmer's cow-house, and, where it is not being produced, this is more due to human defects than to defects in the building or its equipment.

The noble Lords who have spoken must remind me if I omit certain of the matters to which they have referred. Reference has been made to the methods of applying the tuberculin test. Upon that point I am not in a position to say anything to-day. The Report of the Medical Research Council on this matter, which is intensely interesting, has been published, and is available in the Stationery Office for any noble Lords who like to study it. A large number of veterinary surgeons throughout the country—and the matter rests mainly with them—are themselves making experiments with the intra-dermal test which is so strongly recommended in this Report. No doubt, if it is as efficacious as the Report suggests, its efficacy will be recognised throughout the country. As regards the standardisation of tuberculin, that again is a matter which is being considered, and experiments are being made by leading veterinary surgeons throughout the country. I am sure that we all agree that it is desirable to standardise tuberculin so far as is possible.

The noble Earl opposite spoke of the socialisation of industry, and exemplified its possibilities by referring to the distribution of milk. We on this side of the House consider that a solution, and a more effective solution, can be found for these problems without turning to that which the Labour Party describe as the socialisation of industry. But we do recognise that it is uneconomic for milk to be distributed in the way in which it is distributed to-day in many large cities where you have, as the noble Earl said, several milk carts delivering milk in the same street. Obviously there is no economy in distribution there, but this is a matter for organisation among distributors, in the same way as the purchase of foodstuffs, to which he referred, and the sale on satisfactory terms of milk products by farmers are matters for organisation between the producers. I should like to make it plain to the noble Earl that, in my opinion, this must be a matter for voluntary action and not for compulsion on the part of the Government. The whole essence of agricultural cooperation, as demonstrated throughout the world, is that it must be voluntary. You cannot force people to co-operate if they will not co-operate. The advantages of co-operation are being recognised increasingly every year, and I have no doubt that, with such encouragement and assistance as the Government can give, they will be more and more recognised in this country as time goes on. I do not know whether I have covered the whole of the points brought forward by the two noble Lords in their speeches, but I have done my best to answer their questions.

My Lords, I should like to say only one word of a practical kind, since the views of my noble friends on this side of the House have already been represented. I have been very closely associated with a dairy farm in the North of England which, for the purpose of experiment, was placed under the control of the University of Leeds. That dairy farm has been successful in two ways. In the first place it has, I think, solved the question of whether it is more economical to produce food for dairy cows on the farm or to buy it outside. The farm in question has been divided into two parts in order that the experiment may be tried under conditions that are exactly similar. But more important still, I think, is the question of clean milk. This farm obtained the prize in Yorkshire for clean milk during last year. No doubt it had admirable buildings, but I doubt whether any one really understood, until the experiment was made, what was the real difficulty in obtaining clean milk—or rather, since there is no such thing as absolutely clean milk, in obtaining relatively pure milk. The custom there had been to milk the cows by electrical machinery, but it was found to be quite impossible to obtain clean milk under those conditions, however carefully the machinery was cleaned. Clean milk could be obtained only by hand milking. That was a very important discovery and, although the change was costly, it was quite compensated for by the fact that clean milk was produced in one instance where there had been an entire failure to produce it in the other. The farm, of course, comes under what are called the Grade A Regulations.

I hope that the noble Lord opposite who represents the Ministry of Agriculture will consider very carefully the question of tuberculin tests. It often happens that, possibly three or four times, the tuberculin test may operate to show absence of tuberculosis and then, on the fifth occasion, you get a different reaction. That is very unsatisfactory, and particularly unsatisfactory when it is a case of the sale of pedigree stock abroad from a well-known dairy stock in this country. That, to my knowledge, has happened more than once, with very unfortunate results, and I hope the noble Lord will consider the suggestions made by the noble Earl on this side, and also, I think by Lord Astor, that, so far as tuberculin tests are concerned, further research should be made and further information obtained. My purpose in rising was merely to give the illustration of a farm with which I am personally associated, in which clean milk has been obtained so as to gain the Yorkshire prize, and which, I think, offers conditions favourable to the maximum result, because the records on that farm for various cows have been kept now for thirty years, and the stock has always been selected in relation to those milk records.

With the leave of the House I should like to answer the noble Lord who has just spoken, and also reply to two questions which I failed to remember just now. We all admit that tuberculin tests are not in every case reliable, but it is rather a remarkable fact that in 95 per cent, of the cases the subcutaneous injection of tuberculin has been found to give a correct idea of the condition of the cow. The last word, however, has not been heard on the subject. The noble Lord can be well assured that the matter is under very careful consideration by the Ministry of Agriculture, and it is hoped that some method will shortly be found which will be trustworthy not in 95, but in 100 per cent. of the cases. Of course, it is only fair to remind the noble Lord opposite that it depends upon the condition of the cow at the time of injection whether the temperature does rise.

I forgot to refer to the question of castings, and Lord Astor asked me to say something about it. In each of the twelve provinces into which England and Wales has been divided for agricultural educational purposes, there will be a staff attached to the provincial college, which is costing a number of selected farms in the area. Approximately 300 farms are at present being costed, and, as the scheme further develops, no doubt this number will increase considerably. The costings scheme is centralised at the Institute for Research into Agricultural Economics at Oxford, where all the costings results are sent by the various colleges, and they are thus available for the costings staff at any college which may wish to carry out a full investigation of one particular aspect of farming, such as, for example, dairying. The other matter to which I did not refer was the 5s. charge for the certificate as to the yield of milk in recorded cases. The noble Lord opposite may be interested to hear that although, as he says, the 5s. charge has discouraged a large number of people from applying for certificates, there has been substituted by the Ministry a form of declaration which is made by the owner of a cow and counter-signed by the secretary of the milk recording society, which to all intents and purposes is of the same value, and for which nothing whatever is paid.

had given Notice to ask His Majesty's Government whether in view of the wide legislative changes that have been made in recent years in the status and rights of married women they will appoint a Select Committee to consider the state of the law governing the liabilities of a married man in respect of the torts and debts of his wife, and to report what alterations are necessary or desirable.

My Lords, as the noble Lord has pointedly called upon me to say what I think is the law of Scotland, it is the fact that it, has never been the law of Scotland that a woman's husband should be liable for what in that country are called her quasi-delicts and in this country are known as torts. However, as I am appealed to as a Scottish authority, I suppose I must be strictly accurate. There is one exception more seeming that real. By the law of Scotland a wife is preposita negotiis domestecis and, therefore, I am bound to say that if, in settling the butcher's book, she called the butcher a swindling thief because he had charged for a haggis a price that was only proper to collops, I think an action would lie.

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord opposite has rendered a public service by bringing forward a question which has remained obscure for so long, for reasons that are inexplicable. It seems to me that, having in mind the long string of Statutes which have been passed to give the wife a separate political status, a separate status in regard to property and a separate status in the matter of protection, it is monstrous that this principle should remain standing and intact. It is an inheritance, as the noble and learned Lord has said, from the days when by the Common Law of England husband and wife were regarded as one person. It required a long struggle even in the Court of Chancery before Lord Thurlow could establish the doctrine of the separate use. It was looked upon as a great anomaly and a great violation of principle, and so it was; but it was obviously necessary.

We have dealt with many other things which were obviously necessary, but it still remains the law that an unfortunate husband may be subject to damages of £3,000, or any amount, for a slander uttered by his wife with which he has nothing to do, and is not able to prevent. As my noble friend, Lord Dunedin, has pointed out, there is no such law in Scotland; but its principle is tempered, to use their own expression, by the position of the wife as preposita. She may get the family into trouble with the butcher on the ground that she herself has been entrusted by the family with the dealings with him. But that is a very different subject, and a very different result from what is complained of in the Question and has been put before the House, and I hope that the Lord Chancellor, whose views on these subjects are always enlightened views, will assent to the appointment of a Select Committee—if he does not wish to take the direct responsibility upon himself—which may investigate this subject and recommend to us what the enlightenment of the times and the standards which we have reached require.

My Lords, I would say only a few words to your Lordships in support of the change in the law which my noble and learned friend Lord Danesfort has advocated, and which has been supported by the noble Lords who have spoken. It seems to me that this matter should be urged particularly by the women themselves if they are to be considered, as I have no doubt they wish to be considered, independent and logical people. They have, long been claiming that they are the absolute equals of men. They could not get that acknowledged until they had broken a large number of windows, had chained themselves to people's railings and could only be removed with great force, and at last, by those means, men, and even the Legislature, were forced to admit that there was nothing which a man could do that women were not prepared to do with equal violence.

Yet there exists this law, which the noble Viscount, who has just spoken said was regarded as a matter of pleadings and under which a man and his wife are only one person in the eye of the law. Therefore if the wife commits a wrong it has been committed by her husband, and the pleader has never distinguished between the two. When he drew a statement of claim on behalf of the one who had suffered the wrong at the hands of the wife, he included her husband because the law drew no distinction between them whenever she did wrong, though, if she did right, the husband very seldom received any credit for it.

But there was another reason, and mention it because, the reason being what it is, I think the women themselves would particularly wish that this law should be altered. A case came in very recent days before a Court of the King's Bench Division. I think it is the case to which my noble and learned friend alluded. It is the case of Waterhouse and Wilson-Barker. It was tried six weeks or two months ago, and in the course of that trial a very learned and very grave Judge of the King's Bench said:—

"It was hard on a husband nowadays that he should be considered as being able to keep his wife in order. Selden, an old Common Law lawyer, had written in one of his books that a man's wife was in a somewhat similar position to his pet monkey, and the husband must be responsible for the mischief she did."

Selden was a lawyer concerning whom may be said that, excepting perhaps the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, there is probably not such another in the House. Selden is revered everything he says obtains assent in a Court of Law; and that is what he said is the foundation of the law.

Beyond Selden there is another lawyer much revered, and that is Sir William Blackstone. Sir William Blackstone not only knew the law of England, but had a great regard for it. Perhaps not everybody knows that he wrote poetry in praise of it. He wrote many other things, but also these lines about what he called Britannia's law—

"Unfold with joy her sacred page

The united boast of many an age,

Where mix'd, though uniform, appears

The wisdom of a thousand years."

If we go on a little further in the same volume we shall find what this excellent wisdom of our law was. He writes:

"The husband also (by the old law) might give his wife moderate correction. For, as he is to answer for her misbehaviour, the law thought it reasonable to entrust him with this power of restraining her, by domestic chastisement, in the same moderation that a man is allowed to correct his apprentices or children."

So that the pet monkey theory is not the whole of it. The law has been altered. A man may not now beat his wife as he might in the days when Blackstone wrote.

I do not know whether it is commonly known how the law said that he Might beat her. He gives it in Latin, I suppose in order that it might give offence to fewer people:—

"The Civil Law gave the husband the same, or a larger, authority over his wife: allowing him for some misdemeanours, flagellis et fustibus acriter verberare uxorem; for others, only modicam castigationem adhibere."

Blackstone puts it that a man is allowed to beat his wife because he is responsible for her torts. How then is it reasonable that he should be still held responsible for the torts she commits, and yet is not allowed to administer modicam castigationem? The law has decided that he may. Opinion grew upon this subject and Blackstone tells us this:—

"But with us, in the politer reign of Charles the Second, this power of correction began to be doubted: and a wife may now have security of the peace against her husband: or, in return, a husband against his wife. Yet the lower rank of people, who were always fond of the old Common Law, still claim, and exert their ancient privilege."

This ancient privilege having been taken away it is a well known maxim of the law: cessante ratione cessat et ipsa lex. The law having taken away the power of the husband to see that his wife does not commit these torts by administering to her that castigation which he was accustomed to administer till the politer age of Charles the Second began, it seems to me perfectly logical, and I am sure that I could convince any woman of it, that, as the husband might beat her because he was responsible for the mischief that she did, so he ought not to be responsible for the mischief she does now he is no longer allowed to beat her. I shall not argue this matter purely as a lawyer. I wish to put the woman's point of view. I am sure, regarding themselves as perfectly independent and affranchised, they would desire not to be joined with their husbands more than is absolutely necessary; not to be joined with them in actions in the law; to be able to bring actions themselves, get damages and put the damages in their own pockets, and if actions are brought against them to pay for them out of the same pockets. The simple ground of the equality of the sexes which we have acknowledged demands that this change in the law should be made, and I trust the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will be able to tell us that the Government will promote it.

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Danesfort has raised a question of importance. It is a fact that it was held by the House of Lords, in another capacity, a very short time ago that the old law still exists that the husband may be made a party to an action for damages for his wife's wrongdoing, and may be made responsible for her wrongdoing. I confess that I was not in agreement with that decision. I thought, having examined recent Statutes, especially the Married Property Act, 1882, that the old rule had in law been practically abolished. I was supported in my view by the agreement of my noble and learned friend who is now Secretary of State for India. But the decision of the house was the other way, although in that particular case the husband escaped on a special ground. Still it must, of course, now he taken to be the law that the old rule exists.

As has been said, the rule was founded upon the ancient doctrine that husband and wife are one person. The lawyers of some centuries ago could not conceive of an action being brought against a married woman without her husband being joined, and so strong was the rule that even where husband and wife had been separated from one another by agreement, and had not seen each other perhaps for years, yet if the wife committed a tort the husband might be sued for it. The old doctrine has gradually disappeared and husband and wife for very many purposes, possibly for all purposes except this particular one, are now two separate persons. Therefore the whole reason for this doctrine appears to me to have gone, and in giving my opinion in the case to which I have referred, the case of Edwards v. Porter, in this House I added this sentence—

"If in this case your Lordships should hold, on the true construction of the Act of 1882, that this injustice has been committed, then the sooner it is remedied by further legislation the better."

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Danesfort, has referred to one reason why the change should be made. No doubt it is true that in recent years, and especially since what is known as the Clitheroe case, the old rule that a husband may beat his wife with a stick no thicker than his thumb has gradually disappeared. But there is another injustice which is now caused by the existence of this liability on the part of the husband. As the law stood the wife's property, her personal property, went to her husband on marriage, and the personal property which she acquired after marriage passed at once to her husband. If the husband was liable for his wife's torts, he at all events had her money and had means by which he could meet any damages for her wrongdoing. That state of the law has entirely gone. Under the law of to-day no property of a married woman passes to her husband on marriage or after her marriage, and while this source is no longer available to the husband to meet any claim for damages, the claim for damages still remains. That seems to me to be unjust. We have heard of the rights of wives for some years, but in this case we ought to consider the rights of husbands. The matter seems to me to lie in so small a compass that really no Committee is needed to pronounce on the matter. The Government have considered the point, and they propose at a convenient time to introduce legislation for the purpose of dealing with this grievance. Whether it will be possible to find time during the present Session I cannot say, but at all events, as soon as an opportunity occurs, we intend to bring before Parliament proposals for remedying this grievance.

I have to thank the Lord Chancellor for his most sympathetic reply and to assure him that the legislation which he has promised on this subject will meet with no opposition so far as one can foresee. Certainly the women are all in favour of it, and I cannot imagine that men will oppose it.

moved, in paragraph (c), after "being", to insert "or forming part of." The noble and learned Lord said: I am moving this Amendment, and the following one, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Kylsant in whose name they stand. It is clear that these words accord with the general scheme of the Bill and should be inserted. They would certainly remove a doubt as to the meaning of this clause, and I hope the noble Marquess will accept them.

This point was mentioned in another place, and I think it was understood that, if possible, any doubt should be removed. The Government think there is just a doubt, a very small one, and they are quite prepared to accept the Amendment.

moved, in paragraph (c), to leave out "may" and insert "shall." The noble Lord said: There was considerable trouble in another place because the Legislature use the word "may" when they really mean shall." Obviously the meaning of this clause is "shall," and I propose we should put in that word in order to make perfectly clear what is really meant.

There is a little substance in this Amendment. It is conceivable that an authority might not desire to carry out what is the intention of Parliament and might, therefore avail itself of the word "may." The Government are prepared to accept this.

My Lords, in moving that the Commons Amendments be now considered I may perhaps make a few observations upon them. All the Amendments are of a formal or drafting character, with two exceptions. One is an Amendment on line 15 of page 13, by which the other House proposes to omit the power contained in the Bill for a judge to direct that an action shall be tried without a jury. That Amendment might be accepted. The only other Amendment which is not technical is the proposal to leave out Clause 25. The object of that clause was to make probate of a will granted in England available in Scotland, if the deceased also had property there, and in the same way to make a Scottish confirmation of executors available in England where the deceased had English property. It was thought that the technical difficulties in the way, which seemed somewhat embarrassing, might be removed by arrangement between the officials of the Probate Division here and the corresponding officials in Scotland. On further inquiry it was found that the two Departments were by no means at one. I think the best plan, then, would be to accept the Amendment.

My Lords, I do not think your Lordships would want me to delay you more than a minute or two in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, because this Bill, with the modification of the date, is identically the same Bill that was passed by your Lordships last year, according to the advice of the Labour Government which was then in power. It was, of course, a non-controversial Bill. The noble Lords opposite received the policy, and the measure which was founded on the policy, from the Conservative Govern- ment, which, in its turn, succeeded them, and the Bill is now presented to your Lordships in exactly the same form as it left the House last time.

Perhaps the only matter which I ought to deal with is this. According to the original project of the organisation of the Imperial Institute, as it issued from the Conservative Government, it was proposed to dispense with the Exhibition Galleries. That was in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee which reported to the Imperial Economic Conference, when we were in power, but since that time there was, in the time of the late Government, correspondence between the Dominions, and a change of opinion followed. The majority of them became convinced that it was wiser to maintain the Galleries and at the same time a very generous offer was made by a member of your Lordships' House to give the sum of £5,000 a year if this original decision were reversed and the Galleries were maintained.

It was £5,000 a year for five years.

I am much obliged to my noble friend. Under these circumstances the policy was altered upon the advice of noble Lords opposite, with which we on our side entirely concurred, and in the present Bill, as in the Bill of last year, the Galleries are retained. That is, I think, the only substantial difference between the Bill and the Report of the Committee upon which the Bill was founded.

The finance of the transaction is set out in the Papers which are before your Lordships. There are to be contributions by the Imperial Government, and contributions by the Dominions. In the case of the Galleries all the Dominions are not prepared to contribute, but the majority of them will do so. Canada, Australia and New Zealand are prepared to contribute. Together with the contribution of the Imperial Government, these contributions are held to be sufficient to maintain the Galleries, though, of course, no figure can yet be accurately fixed. If any noble Lord has any question to put upon the Bill I shall do my utmost to satisfy him. I beg to move.

My Lords, I will try to emulate the brevity of the noble Marquess in saying a few words in support of the Second Reading of this Bill. The Bill, as he has explained, is, except for the alteration of date, the same as that which was passed through your Lordships' House last summer. Since then the circumstances have not changed. It is only the Government that has changed. Whether that change has been to the advantage of the country is a matter a good deal more controversial than I think this Bill will be. I am happy to think—I trust I am not too sanguine in saying this—that, in view of certain changes which were made last year, the Bill in its final form achieves a very large measure of agreement and becomes, I think, to a great extent non-contentious. Certain points were raised in Committee last year by noble Lords, and we, the Government of the day, did our best to meet those points. I was of opinion then, and I hope that my opinion was correct, that to a very large extent agreement was reached, and therefore I am hopeful that the measure will go smoothly through your Lordships' House.

Like the noble Marquess, I will not go into details of that which was clone last summer. I am glad that he referred to the fact that the financial problem in regard to the upkeep of the Galleries was very considerably relieved by the extremely generous contribution of the noble Viscount, Lord Cowdray, who promised £5,000 a year for five years, with the result that the Galleries will be retained. I do not think that I need say more, except that the passage of this Bill is, as the noble Marquess indicated, very long overdue owing to the intervention of two General Elections at, for this Bill, a most awkward moment, so that it has not found its way to the Statute Book and, indeed, a certain amount of embarrassment has thereby been caused. So far as I am concerned I shall be glad to do anything that I can to facilitate its speedy passage. I hope that it will pass through your Lordships' House and through another place without delay, and will at last find its way to the Statute Book.

My Lords, before your Lordships are asked to read this Bill a second time I should like to inter- vene for one moment to express my gratification that the Bill is again presented to your Lordships' House in a form unaltered from that in which it left us last year under the late Government. It is true that alterations of some importance were made last year in the original draft of the Bill as it was presented to your Lordships' House. As my noble friend Lord Salisbury said, the Bill was originally based on the Report of a Colonial Office Committee, which was appointed to decide upon the future of the Imperial Institute. I should like to point out here that this Report was by no means unanimous. Quite a number, and those by no means the least important, of the members of that Committee took at the time, and expressed their opinion in a Minority Minute, very grave exception to the proposal, as it was then made, to withdraw the Galleries of the Institute.

Those of us who have been intimately connected for many years with the work of the Imperial Institute realise the extremely important and valuable services that the Institute has rendered in the direction of bringing the Imperial producer into close contact with the home industrialist, and a very important feature, I might say an integral part, of that work was undoubtedly supplied by the Galleries. I am very glad to know that this Bill is fairly assured of becoming an Act of Parliament and establishing the Galleries as an integral part of the Institute, and also that the laboratories are to be continued, to conduct their practical investigations, as they have done in the past with such great advantage, especially to the Crown Colonies and the Protectorates. I should like to say here that for these important provisions that have been inserted in the Bill we are indebted, I think, in the first place to the late Colonial Secretary, Mr. Thomas, and to the noble Lord who conducted the Bill in this House, Lord Arnold. I should like also to express my gratitude, along with those who have already spoken, for the very generous grants that have been made by the noble Viscount, Lord Cowdray, to ensure the maintenance of the Galleries for the next five years.

There is only one more point that I should like to bring to the earnest attention of my noble friend, and that is a point that is not embodied—and quite properly so—in the Bill. I would venture to say that the future of the Institute will very largely depend upon the appointment of the Director who, under the governing body, will preside over the work of the Institute. The post has been vacant since the retirement of Sir Wyndham Dunstan in 1923. I venture to hope that every endeavour will be made by the authority, whether it be the Government or the Overseas Department, that controls the Institute in the future to secure the right type of man with the requisite qualities for this most important post. I hope that my noble friend may be able to tell us that before the selection is made there shall be full consultation with the representative governing body that will be set up to conduct the administration of the Institute, including, as it will, representatives of the Dominions, India, the Colonies and Protectorates, all of which, I would remind the House, pay their share towards the maintenance of the Institute.

I sincerely hope that this governing body will be taken into full consultation, and I do so for this reason, that during the seven years I had the honour of presiding over the Executive Council I had some experience of the kind of work which the Director performed in those days, and which I hope the new Director will perform in an even more extended form in the days to come. It is not only necessary that you should have a practical chemist, with scientific experience, in the laboratory, but you want to have a man to act as Director of this Institute who has administrative qualities, and a wide vision of our vast Empire and all the immense potentialities which exist within the realms of the Empire, and of all the varied raw materials and products which emanate from our Dominions, Colonies, Protectorates, and India. You cannot expect in the early days to have as Director a man of the extraordinary experience, as he acquired it, of the late Director, Sir Wyndham R. Dunstan, because he was really a past master in knowledge of the varying products of all parts of the Empire, and of the exact appropriateness of those products within their own lines, as well as in their application, to industry and commerce in this country.

All I would suggest is that in making the appointment every effort should be made to secure a man who, at least, has a very sensible tendency towards Imperial appreciation, with, as far as possible, a manifestation from his past career of a knowledge of the products of the Empire, and of what can be done for Imperial trade if those products are brought into constant contact with the manufacturers of this country. I believe, at any rate, that one way of ensuring the appointment of a man who, I think, must possess these qualities, is to suggest to the Government that the Department that appoints should, before doing so, obtain full advantage of advice in consultation with the governing body, including, as it will, gentlemen with practical experience of this type of man, and full knowledge of the qualifications that will be required for a sucessful Director of the Institute. I therefore ask the noble Lord if he can give us some assurance in the direction I have indicated.

My Lords. I should like to support my noble friend Lord Islington upon the point which he has made as the desirability, upon every ground, in making the appointment of a Director, of consultation with the Board of Governors. I have myself very little doubt that that will be done, but I hope that the noble Marquess will be in a position to give us a definite assurance on the point. I am in full agreement with the Bill, and have long wished it to come into being, and I am not going to detain your Lordships with any further comments on the Second Reading of the measure. I should, however, like to refer to one point, namely, the inclusion in the Bill of Clause 6, which ensures adequate accommodation in the Institute for Indian purposes. As some of your Lordships will remember, I moved an Amendment on the point last year, and through the support and assistance which I received from my noble friend Lord Arnold, who then represented the Colonial Office in this House, that clause was inserted in the Bill, and I desire to express my personal acknowledgment to him for his assistance in reference to that matter. I will only express the hope that, as this Bill is indeed long overdue, it will pass all its stages early this Session.

My Lords, I think we may say that this Bill is the pattern of an agreed Bill. There is not a murmur of opposition to it in any quarter of the House, and I am sanguine enough to believe—perhaps I should say hope—that the same fate awaits it in another place.

I am afraid I am to blame for having misled the noble Marquess. Last year the Bill was introduced in this House, but, this year, it has already been through the House of Commons.

I trust the noble Lord so thoroughly that he even misled me in this respect. The measure has been through another place, and so I may amend my statement and say that it is absolutely an agreed Bill now. There remain the observations of the two noble Lords who have just sat clown with regard to the appointment of Director. I need not say that I share with them the view that it is of great importance that a Director should be properly selected, and I would remind my noble friends that it is not an easy selection. You want not merely a man of technical knowledge and wide outlook, but a man of great administrative capacity, and I need not say that that combination is not a very common one. Therefore great care will have to be taken in the selection of a Director. The appointment lies in the bands of the Minister who is termed in the Bill the "responsible Minister," and that is the Secretary of the, Department of Overseas Trade, but I am able to assure my noble friend that he will take great care to consult fully the governing body before making the appointment. I think that assurance was hardly required, because it is so obvious a duty to throw upon him, but I am able to give that assurance, and I think that, after consulting them, he will be in a position to make the appointment. I will bring the observations of Lord Islington to the special notice of the responsible Minister, and let him know what has been said in this House, because Lord Islington has a great right to address your Lordships on this particular subject, and I am sure the responsible Minister will value his advice.

I am not quite sure whether your Lordships would wish to have any interval between the Second Reading and the Committee stage.

No.

In that case I will put the next stage down to-morrow.

Before the House adjourns I should like to say that there is an important Bill which has just come down to this House, and which has been read a first time to-day, entitled the Gold Standard Bill. I understand that a noble Lord opposite desires to address you on the subject, and there are other noble Lords who no doubt wish to speak upon it. It is a Money Bill, and therefore it is not a matter upon the details of which you would wish to spend much time, but I imagine that it would be convenient to the House if it could have an opportunity of discussing the Bill on the principal stage of it, and it would seem to be convenient to put the Bill down for Monday. The Bill must be through all its stages by May 11; that is to say, it would be very inconvenient, for financial reasons, if it were delayed beyond May 11. If it would satisfy your Lordships' House to have a thorough discussion of the Bill, to the full extent that the House may desire, I would suggest that Standing Orders might be suspended and the Bill passed through all its stages on that day. That course would probably be convenient to the House.

My Lords, may I say that so far as noble Lords on this Bench are concerned, the course proposed by the noble Marquess would be perfectly agreeable. I gather, if the suggestion is agreed to in other quarters of the House, that there would be a debate on the Second Reading of the Bill, that all the stages would be taken afterwards and that the Bill would be through on Monday next.

That is so. May I take it that this is the general wish of the House?

My Lords, it may be convenient to your Lordships if I mention that noble Lords who are interested in the Legitimacy Bill have expressed a desire to see the Bill in print, as altered on the Report Stage before it comes up for Third Reading. I propose, therefore, to take the Third Reading on Tuesday next instead of to-morrow.