HC Deb 12 August 1867 vol 189 cc1417-32

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clauses 12, 13, and 14 struck out: other Clauses inserted in lieu thereof.

Clause 45 (Regulations respecting landing, &c, of Foreign Animals).

MR. CORRANCE

* In rising at this hour of the evening to move important Amendments upon this clause, I do so under some disadvantage, and certainly with a wish that so important a duty should have devolved upon some older and abler Member of this House. For some time after the introduction of this Bill, I awaited notices to this effect. There was up to such time but one which at all seemed to reach this case, and this, or at least, what seemed to me the most important part of it, was subsequently withdrawn. Upon this I shall have occasion hereafter to revert. Now, Sir, this matter is one which well deserves the attention of this House, and I cannot help thinking that we should have been somewhat remiss in the performance of our duties here, if, after the strong expression of public feeling which has reached us all, and which has already found considerable utterance through Chambers of Agriculture and other public bodies—if, I say, the present question had not assumed a practical form, and challenged a practical issue in this House. Under these circumstances, I have placed my present Amendment on the list. One word as to this; in it I seek to bring matters to a direct and practical conclusion upon three principal points. Of these, the first is: At what ports it shall be lawful to introduce foreign stock, leaving the number of such ports discretionary with the Privy Council itself? Secondly, the defined period for which this shall be so fixed. And, thirdly, the regulations under which such importations shall take place. For all these, I shall hope to be able to afford some reasons which will be satisfactory to the House. Previous to doing so, let me address myself to some remarks which fell from the noble Lord (Lord Robert Montagu) the other night, as these seem to me capable of raising some prejudices unfavourable to my case. The noble Lord was very positive on one or two points. First, our dependence upon the foreign supply, and its increasing importance to us. There is no doubt of the fact; but he certainly did not show us that any arrangements he proposed to make could at all affect or limit that supply; nor did he use one argument to prove that his most unjust assumption, that we wanted to place fetters on the foreign trade in order to free ourselves, was founded on any data of a substantial class. Why, Sir, what is the fact? That, notwithstanding all the restrictions and regulations placed upon this foreign trade during the last year, and, beyond all, in and under the uncertainty which successive Orders in Council have produced, this foreign trade has continued, and does continue to increase. Sir, let me supply the noble Lord with some data as to this. In the Customs Report for the past year, we find it stated as worthy of note, that— Singularly enough, the oxen, bulls, and cows subject to the prohibitions and restrictions rendered necessary by cattle plague, and which have had to compete with the dead-meat trade, have risen in number from 128,601 to 144,952, an increase of 12½ per cent. It continues to say— Nor are the Returns under dead meat less remarkable, standing thus: 1864,47,044; 1865, 49,824; 1866,144,064 tons. Well, Sir, these are the facts with which we have to deal, and I leave it to the House to say how far they bear out the imputations as to our motives thrown out by the noble Lord—at least, we proceed with knowledge in this case. Well, Sir, we come next to the great losses to be apprehended from waste of offal, and the hardships thus entailed upon the poor man. Now, let me re-assure the noble Lord as to this. For this assumption, there is scarcely a foundation in fact, especially under the improved arrangements which, any permanent settlement 6f this question will enable us to carry out. Of these, there is no doubt, the poor man will share the benefit with us; and admitting, as I do, the full force of the noble Lord's appeal, I may, perhaps, ask him to afford to us equal credit upon such behalf. To confirm these views, let me call attention to the remarks recently made by the noble Duke at the head of this department (the Duke of Buckingham) in "another place." He speaks thus— Another remarkable circumstance as regards the social comfort of the people was well worthy of mention. It was gratifying to find that the restrictions necessary had not had any injurious effect in raising the price of meat, as shown by the quotation of the Metropolitan Market, the average price of beef being from 1st January, 1886, 6¾d. per lb., and from April 29th to May 26th, when the restrictive measures were in full force it was the same. And now, Sir, for the last assertion, that it is in some sort a measure of class legislation which we seek. Nothing can be less well founded than this, or that this is a party measure of any sort. On this subject, I appeal as boldly to that side of the House as I do to this—nay, with even more confidence than to the noble Lord himself. This circumstance lightens my task, that this question is no longer narrowed to a party issue, nor esteemed a mere class interest. On all sides its importance is admitted, not only to the producers, but to the consumers, to be a matter of serious concern. But what can best be done is our only real object in this case. But, Sir, if the noble Lord has failed to adduce any reasons to shake our belief in the necessity of the regulations we seek to have carried out, he has not failed to furnish us with additional arguments for our case. What has the noble Lord told us concerning this? Why, that through the regulations?which—partial and imperfect as they are—we have been forced to carry out, that we have been protected, not only from cattle plague, but diseases of a no less formidable class—that pleuro-pneumonia, as well as foot-and-mouth disease, are on the decrease. Let our Irish friends remember this. Sir, we are told that occasionally our losses from such causes have amounted in value to the whole of the imported stock; and there is reliable data as to this. Ought this to form no consideration in such a case? And now, Sir, having said so much in reply to the observations of the noble Lord, let us ask the attention of the House to considerations of another class. Sir, I hove said that I regretted that this more general part of the question has been omitted or withdrawn from the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton). I have so for two reasons. First, that his powerful advocacy of such a cause should be lost; and, secondly, that it may lead the House á priori to suppose that he abandons it from a sense of the impracticability of the proposition I am about to make. Sir, it may be so; and this we shall learn from him no doubt; but I am inclined to think that one main reason which may have led him to abandon the cause is to me an additional reason for wishing it at least to be discussed. He doubtless found what I found also on inquiry at these ports, that a great objection to the plan proposed was founded upon the imperfect nature of the accommodation and the defective arrangements at the several ports. Now, I would have the House mark this; for, owing to some circumstances to which I must call especial attention, this very fact, which may have seemed to the hon. Member an obstacle in the path, seems to me an argument the most cogent and conclusive against things as they are, and as tending to confirm the necessity of the Amendment in this clause which I have the honour to move. Now, Sir, what is the reason of the absence of these provisions? They are fairly stated in some letters I hold in my hand; and which, had time permitted, I should have read to the House. Well, Sir, they are one and all conclusive to one effect; that no such provision can be made so long as the present uncertainty as to the intentions and Orders of the Privy Council exist. There are but two means by which such provisions could be made — either through the agency of Government itself, or by the voluntary action of individuals or companies. But, Sir, under what circumstances can we look for this—that of reasonable security and confidence in the investment made? Do Orders in Council, revocable as here proposed from time to time, inspire this? After the experiences of the last three years it is idle to ask. No one will incur the risk of investment in such a case. From every quarter comes evidence as to this, as contained in the letters I have alluded to, from persons and companies at Harwich, Southampton, Liverpool, and London itself. But on the other hand they say that under any Act of Parliament sufficiently precise they will undertake to provide in a manner most complete and satisfactory for every want which can exist, and I have no doubt that the plans are in the hands of the Government itself. Sir, in the presence of such facts we cannot admit the plea set up. These difficulties are such as we help to create, and I surely am fully justified in saying that they rather confirm than shake, rather establish than destroy, my case. It seems to me that from the very first one constant mistake has pervaded all our legislation upon this—namely, as regards the permanent nature of the provision we should be obliged to make. Blunder after blunder has arisen from this cause to the most deplorable effect, not without due warning often repeated from sources thoroughly competent. In the Report of the Commission there is evidence most condemnatory of the merely temporary provisions which exist, and the kind of legislation it is now proposed to introduce. Sir, are hon. Members unconvinced? Do not think it is so; but in case this should be so, let me call attention to some further facts which may serve to convince them that this is not a mere occurrence of a casual or fortuitous class. We are told by those who hold this opinion that since the year 1756 there had been no outbreak of cattle plague in this country. And it is by no means unimportant to know the circumstances under which this exemption took place; for during the whole of the intervening period it prevailed in Galicia and several of the lower provinces of the Austrian Empire. Now, what was our protection for it then? There is every reason to believe that it arose, first, from the admirable quarantine and precautionary measures carried on along the whole frontier of Germany down to the confines of Russia; and secondly, to the lengthened transit of animals, in order to reach England by any other route, which gave time for the development and destruction of the animal by the disease as the period during which it can lie dormant is about fourteen days. But when the Continental system of railways became complete, the probationary period became shortened, and it was evident that the seeds of such a disease could reach us through an ill-guarded side—I say it was evident; for, in fact, it was predicted by scientific men long before its appearance here, and the Government were warned that such a danger did exist, At last it came, and we all know with what deplorable results here. And why? Because we resisted evidence which we did not like; because we refused to believe that which all knowledge and experience affirmed—a course which we have pursued up to the present time under the influence of some feeling, which has blinded our eyes to the real state of the case. Sir, I have said that I believe that such feelings as this have now but small place, at least, in this House. From what I have said it must be admitted that our liability to constant re-importation of this disease is actually on the increase, and that tardily we must come to the conviction that not only is this matter one of mere temporary interest, but that it must be dealt with as a from this cause to the most deplorable question of permanent and increasing importance to all members of the community to which we belong. But, Sir, it may be said that our present provisions are sufficient to protect us from serious loss. This I cannot admit. In every county these restrictions are productive of very serious loss, and an enhanced price is paid by every consumer on that account. These losses are indirect; but this is not all, for they form a very serious item on the county rates, as most county magistrates will prove, amounting to from £300 to £500 a year in most counties. It must not be supposed either that the country alone suffers from this, for that the supply to the metropolis is also seriously curtailed there is no doubt. Who will send up beasts to this market during the existence of regulations which make it a mere trap from which they cannot get out? Surely it is impossible to suppose that such regulations should remain permanently in force, or that they are the lesser of two evils, of which we have the choice. With the slaughter of all foreign beasts at the ports, this would cease. On the other hand, let me say this, that I believe the time is come for some more effectual and permanent measures to meet this case. I cannot, for the reason given, attach much weight to the objections raised. They are such as we create for ourselves—give the security, and the difficulties will cease. Sir, one concluding remark; I have not proposed this Amendment in any spirit of hostility to the Government plan. I have reason to hope that in thus raising the question I am assisting its endeavour to provide some suitable plan. In all our proceedings and instances upon this head, let me testify to the courtesy and care with which those instances have been met, both by the noble Duke at the head of this department, and the noble Lord who represents it in this House. But, Sir, in this case, the anxiety of those without, as well as the real importance of the subject itself, seem to me to create a paramount necessity for the adoption of some further measures of the nature, if not in the form, of that I have the honour to support. Sir, it may be in the power of the Government to defeat the Amendment proposed, in the absence of many by whom it would have met with support; but I would urge their re-consideration of this case, as one in which, if met with a direct negative, they accept a heavy responsibility, against not only public opinion, but that of men who speak from knowledge, and on authority it is not wise to neglect. I beg to move the Amendment of which I have given notice.

Amendment proposed, In page 11, line 9, after the word "Council," to insert the words "shall by order declare at what port or ports, or part or parts of such port or ports, it shall be lawful to import foreign animals, and further to confirm the same for a period of not less than three years, or to such further time as it shall be held expedient to continue this Act in force: And.

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. AYRTON

explained that he had given notice of an Amendment on this subject, because he had been informed by several persons interested in the matter that this clause should be compulsory, instead of merely permissive. Subsequently, however, he had received additional information from persons who took an interest in the matter, and who thought it inexpedient that the clause should be absolute and permanent, instead of permissive. After careful consideration he had come to the conclusion that an absolute clause was undesirable at the present time, and he had consequently determined to withdraw his Amendment. In all probability it would eventually become necessary to make some permanent arrangement with respect to the complete separation of the home from the foreign trade in cattle, though he did not think the proposal of the hon. Gentleman conferring powers for three years only would meet the requirements of the case.

MR. READ

most heartily supported the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for East Suffolk; but before he particularly considered that Amendment, it would be incumbent on him to answer some observations and expose a few contradictions of the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council. His Lordship stated that the vexatious restrictions now in force tended to raise the value of meat, and then quoted figures to prove that they did not. He then went on to say how impossible it was to slaughter the foreign stock at the outports, and in the same breath told us how easily the whole of the kingdom, without any previous notice, was turned into a dead meat market last spring, without raising the price to the consumer; and finished the refutations of his previous statement by mentioning the quantities of dead meat that Scotland sent to London. [Lord ROBERT MONTAGU: I explained how that Scotch meat was sent.] Yes, the noble Lord certainly explained by making a grave mis-statement. The noble Lord told us that all the beef from Aberdeen was sent to London at the risk of the consignee; whereas it is a well known fact that a carcase of beef, whether sent from Scotland or Norfolk, was forwarded at the risk of the sender. Further, the noble Lord said it would be impossible that Harwich and Southampton could supply London with dead meat, and then quoted returns which showed that the direct importation of foreign cattle into the metropolis amounted to 160,000, while those of Harwich and Southampton were each under 5,000. Next the noble Lord showed the hardship of the present restrictions, which placed the owner of cattle at the mercy of the buyer, as they had to be slaughtered in a few days; and failed to perceive that by establishing separate markets and lairs for foreign stock, where cattle could be kept alive any reasonable time, both the importer and the home grazier would be freed from this restriction. Finally, the noble Lord told us that foot-and-mouth disease and pleuro pneumonia were imported from abroad; that the suppression of the least formidable of these diseases would save annually one million's worth of food, and showed that the losses from pleuro pneumonia alone, were almost equal to our importations, and yet refused to shut the door against a foreign disease ten thousand times more deadly, which in a few months had destroyed 250,000 of our cattle, and which if allowed to find a permanent home in this country would probably exterminate all our cattle. He (Mr. Read) would not go into the history of the outbreak of cattle plague in Great Britain, but he would remind the Committee that it was not till they embodied in an Act of Parliament the main recommendations of the first Report of the Cattle Plague Commissioners that they were able to grapple with the disease, and speedily to stamp it out; and they were now asked to carry out the second Report of the Commissioners, and, by slaughtering the foreign stock at the ports of debarkation to keep the cattle plague from again invading this country. In his opinion but few hon. Genmen opposite really understood the losses sustained by the agriculturists and the public from the ravages of the cattle plague. The returns numbered 335,000 victims, but these reports did not embrace by a long way the total number sacrificed, which was much nearer 500,000; but the popular manner of valuing the loss was to take these returns and multiply them by £10 or £12, and say that the farmer's loss is some £3,000,000, £4,000,000, or £5,000,000. Now, if the cattle thus destroyed were simply grazing stock, that might be a fair estimation; but as unfortunately the greater portion were cows, there was not only the actual loss of the cattle, but future means of supplies were greatly crippled. He repudiated most strongly the idea of the noble Lord that the farmers of England were crying out for "protection:" they were perfectly resigned to free trade in meat, but they strongly objected, in the words of the hon. Member for Carmarthenshire, to "free trade in foreign diseases." The British grazier was exposed to the competition of the whole world, and it was the duty of the Government, both for the interest of the consumer as well as of the farmer, to take every precaution to maintain the health of the herds of Great Britain. He (Mr. Read) considered it was all-important to make this slaughter at the outports statutory; it was idle to expect, till some permanency was given by Act of Parliament to the present Orders, that any corporation or company could invest a farthing in building water-side markets or slaughter-houses; besides which, the Privy Council was at all times open to the pressure of the great towns, while their Orders were unconstitutional, uncertain, and tyrannical. There was no reason why the noble Duke, the Lord President of the Council, should not during the recess issue an Order revoking the slaughter of plague stricken cattle, and, reverting to his original opinion, attempt the cure of the cattle plague by the administration of infinitesimal doses of poison in the popular form of homoeopathic globules. Then as to the benefits the Amendment of his hon. Friend would ensure. First, the British farmer would regain confidence, knowing that the only reasonable plan for keeping out the rinderpest was adopted; all fairs and markets might at once be opened, and all the vexatious restrictions on the movement of his cattle, which he has now endured most patiently for near two years, could be at once removed. The consumer, if he would not now have cheaper, would certainly have better meat, and the future supply could be rendered more permanent and more reliable. Great as might be the advantages the public derived from the importations of foreign cattle, it yet should be borne in mind that the supply from abroad did not yet amount to one-tenth of the cattle supplied by the British farmer. The foreign grazier would know what law would regulate his importations, and send them more freely and more regularly, being freed from the present rigorous but capricious inspection, and would have no necessity to kill his cattle so soon after their landing, but might give them time to recover their sea voyage, or take his chance of better markets. Neither need there be less competition for his stock from being separated from the English cattle, as the markets in London would, of course, be held on different days. Now, from whom did the chief opposition come? Mainly from the small butchers, foreign-salesmen, and the owners of lairs about the Metropolitan Market. The arguments used were that the independent retail trader would be annihilated, the great carcase-butchers have it all their own way, that consequently all consumers would suffer, and the poor of London be deprived of the offal. Now, as offal was sent from Holland, it could certainly reach the East of London from Blackwall, and it should be remembered that precisely similar arguments were used when the Smithfield market was removed to Islington, and none of these disasters followed. Then the whole force of the Corporation of London was arrayed against them; but he believed the members of that distinguished body would not allow their interest to stand in the way of a great national good. Directly, too, London would gain. The Metropolitan Market, if reserved for British stock, would speedily recover from the depression which the exclusion of the country butchers and the present restrictions had caused; there need be no cattle-plague rate, which must at times be heavy, as in this May and June nearly 500 cows were slaughtered by the inspectors in the metropolis; the army of 300 policemen which now watched the outer limits of the metropolis night and day might be reduced to a dozen inspectors of the new foreign market; a large por- tion of the blood and garbage which now polluted the city and escaped into the sewers could be utilized, and the nuisance of cattle being driven through the streets could be mitigated. It was proved that seven-eighths of the foreign cattle came to London, and three-fourths of that supply were slaughtered in the East of London. It was formerly the practice for cattle to be landed in the region of Blackwall, to be driven six or seven miles to the Metropolitan Market, and then hurried back again half that distance to the beastly slaughter-houses of Whitechapel, and there to be killed in a state of prostration and fever, which was most detrimental to the health of the people. The slaughterhouses of London were a disgrace to any civilized country, and in Paris no beast was allowed to be slaughtered without a certificate from the inspector that the animal was in a state of health. He (Mr. Read) believed that he should live to see both slaughter-houses and cow-sheds banished to the out-skirts of the metropolis. In conclusion, he would respectfully urge upon all Irish Members to protect their 4,000,000 of cattle from this most insidious disease, and as a Norfolk grazier he particularly expressed this hope, as his county drew annually from Ireland 40,000 or 50,000 head of store stock; he would entreat the representatives of Scotland, if any were present, to preserve their healthy, hardy, prime-meated herds; he would ask the Members for the great towns, if they did not apprehend the failure of the present home supplies of meat, to think of the teeming millions who might at no distant day be deprived of them, and he appealed earnestly and confidently to the Government, composed as it was of the leaders of the great country party—of those who had ever been regarded as the farmers' friends—to support this Amendment, not from any favour or affection to the agricultural interest, but on the far higher claims of broad and even-handed justice.

MR. BRUCE

suggested that the Bill should be made to continue for one year, and that in the meantime the Government should consider what permanent negotiations should be enforced respecting slaughtering cattle in the ports.

MR. HENLEY

said, that the real object they had was to supply the people with food, and keep out disease—whether a few cattle dealers and farmers should suffer a little inconvenience rather than that the whole country should suffer. The import- ation of cattle had remained pretty much the same for some three or four years, and, as nearly as many beasts had died in this country of the disease as had been imported, it was plain that the reason why meat had been dearer arose from that cause. There was, no doubt, that want of energy on the part of the Government had admitted the cattle disease to the country, and it behoved them to prevent a recurrence of the lamentable events of last year. He contended that until a separation was made by the slaughter of all imported cattle, they never would get rid of the disease. Hitherto the country had cheerfully submitted to the most onerous restrictions; but, if they carried them on when there was no disease—and they were only carried on for the benefit of a few cattle dealers—people would get very discontented. Now that the disease had been got rid of they would not submit to restriction when it was plain that there was the greatest danger of re-introducing it by means of importation. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bruce) that this Bill should be continued for one year; and he hoped the Government would assent to the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Corrance).

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU

said, he approved of the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Bruce). The question, however, should not be looked at exclusively from one point of view. Now, though it was true that the agricultural interests had sent up numerous deputations to the Government to remove the restrictions in the country districts, the speakers had failed to mention that the Government had received more numerous and more important deputations from inhabitants of towns to open the ports. The object of the Amendment really was to make the Government retrace its steps. It was the pressure of the poor of London that caused the opening of the ports of London, Southampton, and Harwich, and the cattle came thence to London, and London alone. He would beg to remind the House of the numerous interests that would suffer if cattle were not allowed to come in. There were many trades in London—the glue makers, the shoe makers, the refining trades, and others—which would be brought to a stand-still if the substance snecessary as raw material were not allowed to be brought into the metropolis. The poorest part of the population undoubtedly fed upon the inferior parts of the animal, the offal, which would not be brought here if cattle were killed at the ports. Not to have opened the ports would, therefore, have greatly distressed the poor. The twelve hours' rest before inspection, and the four days' law before being brought to market for immediate slaughter, were a sufficient security against the introduction of the cattle plague. It must be borne in mind also that the Government had constantly received deputations from inland towns like Manchester and Birmingham, which desired to import cattle from Spain and other places where no cattle plague existed. He suggested that the hon. Member (Mr. Corrance) should withdraw his Amendment, and that on the Report the operation of the Bill should be limited to one year.

MR. WATKIN

moved, "That the Chairman do report Progress."

MAJOR JERVIS

expressed his surprise at the statements made by the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council. So far from the rules laid down by the Privy Council cheapening the food for the poor they had the exact contrary effect. The restrictions on the movements of home cattle, consequent on the free introduction of foreign beasts into Islington market, naturally raised the price. There was no reason whatever why offal should not be brought up by railway and be as cheap and cheaper than by the present system. Why, what was already taking place? During the year ending December, 1866, the Great Northern had brought 20,963 tons of meat to London, of which not less than 9,963 tons were from Scotland, and butchers freely acknowledged that the dead meat so brought was better than the live. The Great Western had brought 7,055 tons, some even from Cornwall. The Great Eastern brought 18,000 tons, one-half of which came even from Holland, and the skins and offal of the Dutch beasts found their way to London; how much more would they do so if killed at the ports. He really could not understand who furnished information to the noble Lord on the subject; but whoever did do so was either utterly ignorant of his business, or preferred the interests of certain cattle dealers to that of the real welfare of the people of this country. Why, to show how the cat jumped, the noble Lord said Harwich was licensed to sell and slaughter foreign cattle. Now, the very contrary was the fact—the application had been refused, and every obstacle put in the way of obtaining it.

MR. M'LAREN

opposed the Amendment.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, it was not surprising that their friends from the country should be discontented with a state of affairs very vexatious to them, and extremely injurious to their interests. They had borne the restrictions in a very cheerful spirit, and their conduct was deserving of public approbation, and the time had come when they might fairly expect relief. The truth, however, was that the matter required grave deliberation on the part of the Government and much discussion by the House before anything like a permanent and satisfactory settlement could be arrived at. At this period of the Session it was impossible that the requisite amount of attention could be bestowed upon it. Anything like a precipitate conclusion on a matter so important as that dealt with by the Amendment ought to be deprecated. He thought the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bruce) was well worthy of the consideration of the House. It was necessary to make some provision for the exigency of the moment; but if his hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk (Mr. Corrance) withdrew his Motion, he would undertake on the part of the Government that the matter should receive their best attention during the recess, with the view of adopting a plan which might afford security against the spread of the disease, and, at the same time, terminate or greatly mitigate the restrictions.

Motion to report Progress, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

MR. NEWDEGATE

objected to having the Act continued for a year, because he had known Acts continued from Session to Session eight or nine years, and he was told that if they did not act now they would never have the opportunity of doing so. The restrictions, which were so hard upon the farmer, were not felt by the class represented by the hon. Member for Edinburgh. There were hundreds of places suffering from the operation of the rise of prices owing to the restrictions. He moved an Amendment, which would give the Government six months' time to make their arrangements.

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, by inserting after the word "shall," the words "within six months from the passing of this Act."—(Mr. Newdegate.)

COLONEL NORTH

thought it was a fair proposal of the hon. Member for East Suffolk to limit the operation of his Amendment to one year.

MR. BRUCE

urged the hon. Member for North Warwickshire to withdraw his Amendment, which would prevent the Government from bringing in a Bill next year.

Question, "That those words be there added," put, and negatived.

MR. CORRANCE

*As the mover of this clause, perhaps, I may be permitted to make a few concluding remarks, addressed to those which have been made by hon. Members, by whom I am opposed in this case. When I commenced my address I said that I was well aware that I must, from the lateness of the hour, do so at a great disadvantage in this case, for by it I should be precluded from substantiating my statements by documents, with which I could not then trouble the House. The speech of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets has made me more sensible of this, for he has thrown a doubt upon statements, which, if thus supported, could not have failed to convince the House. He says that— There is great doubt whether, even under the circumstances I suggest, proper provisions would exist at these ports. The documents I hold in my hand must infallibly set such a doubt at rest, for they are undertakings of a definite class, and from quarters beyond all suspicion or doubt. Give the security, and the provisions will exist. Then what does the noble Lord tell us?—First, that if the order for slaughter is peremptory, that the seller must be at the mercy of the buyer, by delay. But does experience confirm this? The buyer must eat, and within a limited time; and the supply must be much beyond the demand to prevent this. At this time this provision does exist at all ports except Harwich and Southampton; and, let me ask him, do the facts bear him out? With meat at 10d. per lb, there is no symptom of this. Take a much more flagrant case—that of cattle brought within the metropolitan area, where they are caught as in a trap. There might be something to complain of here; but the prices do not bear this out. Consumers pay for the inconvenience no doubt—a matter of some concern to them, as I think. The noble Lord asks us to perpetuate these provisional Council Orders from time to time, revocable at will. He asks us to perpetuate the plague; he may be assured of this. He makes a plea for the poor man upon grounds which I have shown do not exist. Are we satisfied with things as they are? and are we to rest in endurance of regulations of so costly a class? Why, who can estimate the indirect effects of such restrictions, no less than those which are calculable and direct? There is at present scarcely a county in England where the local expenses do not amount to £300 or £500, thrown as a burden on the rates. Lastly, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He tells us that time will not permit these changes to be carried out. Surely this is not our fault, who have waited day by day for the entrance of this Bill into the Committee of the House for these three weeks past. Nor will time mend matters if left, as is now proposed, in uncertainty and doubt. The right hon. Gentleman has made a proposal—he will limit the duration of the Bill to one year. He urges our acceptance of this. I accept it on one understanding—that it shall include my clause for the same time; and I shall therefore beg to insert the words "one year" to this effect. I trust that it may meet with his assent.

Words inserted limiting the operation of the Act to one year.

Then it was moved that the Clause, as amended, be agreed to.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 42; Noes 54: Majority 12.

Amendment negatived.

Committee report Progress, to sit again upon Wednesday.

House adjourned at Three o'clock.