HC Deb 08 May 1884 vol 287 cc1807-14

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Dodson.)

MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD

said, it had happened, through circumstances over which they had no control, that he and some of his hon. Friends had had no opportunity of making an objection to this Bill at any of its stages. It would be in the recollection of the House that both on the second reading and on the Motion to go into Committee on the Bill they accepted a suggestion by the Prime Minister that they should raise their objections in Committee, and he thought the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire [Mr. Chaplin) would do him the justice to admit that his opposition and that of his hon. Friends to the Bill had been moderate throughout. For himself, he was bound to say that the hon. Member's advocacy of his cause had been powerless; and that the hon. Member himself must feel that the victory had not been entirely on his side. The contention of the hon. Member, and those who acted with him, was that the policy they desired to carry out would prevent the import of diseased cattle; and the Duke of Richmond, in support of the same policy, had recently stated that the true remedy for foot-and-mouth disease was dead meat. But the agitation which this Bill had aroused showed that the expectation put forward by the Duke of Richmond had been disappointed; for it proved that neither this Government, nor any that might succeed them—and which might be less well disposed to the people—could possibly carry out that policy. It was simply impossible for any Government of this country to prohibit the import of live animals for food from the United States and other countries. When this Bill, in a less harmful form, was introduced in the other House, Lord Carlingford stated that legislation on the subject was not necessary; and he (Mr. Arnold) objected to this Bill, because it was useless; because it added nothing to the powers of the Privy Council; and because it was mischievous, in so far as it gave an invitation to the Privy Council to use the authority they already possessed under the Act of 1878 in a careless and hurtful manner. He regretted extremely that the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), who had lent such stalwart aid in resisting legislation of this character, was not now in his place; but he would remind hon. Members with whom the right hon. Gentleman's opinion might have any weight, that when this Bill was in Committee the right hon. Member earnestly pointed to the third reading as the proper opportunity for recording their protests against the Bill. He and his hon. Friends, however, could not that night do more than record their protest against this useless Bill. He moved that the Bill be read that day six months.

MR. THOROLD ROGERS

seconded the Motion.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Arthur Arnold.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

MR. BROADHURST

said, he was glad his hon. Friend had moved the rejection of the Bill. If it passed into law it seemed to him that its title ought to be altered, and that it should be called "The Landowners' Belief Bill." That would be a far more appropriate title for the measure than the one it now had. He objected to such measures as this being smuggled through the House of Commons at a time of night when all respectable people, or the greater part of them, were in bed and asleep; and he ventured to say that if the present position of the Bill and its character had been anticipated at the time when it was first brought before the House it never would have been permitted to reach the stage at which it had now arrived. This was one of the lessons which young Members of the House would not fail to take advantage of. They had a Bill introduced originally of a very moderate and, what appeared to be on the face of it, harmless nature. At every stage of its progress through Parliament advantage had been taken by the landowning interest to strengthen it until it had became a formidable measure, and one which, in his opinion, would be disastrous to the interests of the people who lived on small incomes. Moreover, to his mind, it would be disastrous to the House of Commons, who had been a party to its passing, for it was a measure of taxation on the food of the people. He sincerely hoped that his hon. Friend would press his Motion to a Division; and he (Mr. Broadhurst) only wished that they had such opportunities of pressing their opposition to the measure as would prevent its becoming law. He could say, for himself, that should he have the privilege of remaining a Member of the House for any considerable time, on the next occasion when this kind of inroad upon the rights of the people was attempted, in however small a degree, he should take good care that every possible opposition was offered to it—even to the very introduction of the measure. They knew perfectly well how pleased the Opposition was with the Bill. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), they all knew, gloried in his great success, and his influence over this House in ordering it to pass the measure. The hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well the object of the Bill, and had, in fact, declared it the other night. The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members had declared that the measure tended to encourage the home production of meat. [Mr. WARTON: Hear, hear!] Yes; they understood all about that; but what was to become of the stomachs of the people? Unhappily, the working classes of the country, and the poor of the community, were not so well provided with the world's goods as was the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton). The hon. and learned Member could look at an increase in the price of food with great satisfaction, because he was probably protected against want. But the poor and the working classes were differently situated. What was to become of the food supply during the three or four years interval that would be occupied in growing sufficient cattle to meet the home demand? Why, he had no hesitation in saying that the people of the country would have to undergo a period of starvation from, fresh meat; and if they did not go through that process hon. Members opposite would say that the Bill had failed to accomplish its object. He only regretted that they below the Gangway on the Government side of the House had been so neglectful of their duty, and so misled by the apparent moderation of the promoters of the measure at its earlier stages, as to have allowed it to reach its present dangerous position. He should certainly support his hon. Friend in his opposition to the measure, and he only regretted that their prospects of opposing it were not far greater than they were.

MR. CHAPLIN

said, he thought it right to point out the singular contrast which was presented by the speeches of the two hon. Members who had spoken. The hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold) objected to the Bill, because, he said, it would be useless, ineffective, and harmless; and the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken declared it to be a most formidable and mischievous piece of legislation. As to the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, they had often heard of speeches made to the Gallery; but he (Mr. Chaplin) must say that he thought the speech they had listened to had either been made to the hon. Member's constituents, or else the hon. Member was utterly ignorant of all the debates which had taken place on this question. The hon. Member had not taken the trouble to reply to, or to dispute any one of, the numerous arguments which had been advanced over and over again on that (the Opposition) side of the House in favour of the Bill; and all he had been able to tell them had been proved to be wrong times out of number—namely, that if the Bill was passed the necessary consequence would be that the people of the country would be subjected to starvation. The hon. Gentleman had said, and said very truly, that he (Mr. Chaplin) rejoiced at the passing of this measure. He did rejoice, and rejoice very heartily, at the prospect; and he would tell the hon. Member why. It was because he had given some attention to the subject, and was satisfied that, so far from any of those evil effects which the hon. Member had foretold being brought about, within a very few years after the passing of the measure they would find that the price of meat, instead of being increased, would be substantially lowered, and that the Legislature had succeeded in doing something, though it might not be much, to add to the comforts and to provide for the interests of the people of the country.

MR. SLAGG

said, he could not be reproached for unduly prolonging debates in this House; but he hoped he might be permitted to add a few words of protest against this most objectionable Bill. He did not think the House had even yet thoroughly realized the strong antipathy which was felt to the Bill by the large constituencies of the country. In his own constituency (Manchester) there had been a most remarkable meeting—one of the most remarkable he had ever recollected—in which the public hall of the town was crammed to its full capacity. It was crowded not only with Liberal objectors, but with Tory objectors to the Bill; and there appeared in force on that occasion a large number of men of great experience in the meat trade, who were, per- haps, as well qualified to give an opinion as to the probable results of this Bill as any hon. Member in the House. On that occasion the meeting was addressed by the American Consul, an exceptionally intelligent gentleman, who showed, amongst other things, that, in the case of America, from which country it was feared by the promoters of the Bill that a great deal of infection would be brought, and to deal with which some special precautions were going to be taken, that the introduction of foot-and-mouth disease, in the first instance, was really traced to an importation of cattle from this country. It was explained at the meeting that the result of this measure, if it was carried into practical operation, would be necessarily a very distinct increase in the price of food. Trade in this country was in a very depressed condition. The earnings of the working classes were diminished, and this was, therefore, not a time to play any tricks with the food supply. He was sure that, persevering in the present course, Parliament would inflict on the populations of the largo centres a very serious and grievous wrong; and he could only say that if, in the future, the lauded interest in this country and the Tory Party who had supported this measure were identified with the cry of Protection and dear meat, they had only themselves to blame.

MR. W. H. JAMES

also opposed the Bill. His opinion of it was not so highly coloured as that of his hon. Friend below him (Mr. Broadhurst); but, at any rate, he wished to point out that the Resolution carried last year by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) was only adopted by a majority of six votes. Well, the majority, he had ascertained, represented something like 674,000 electoral votes, while the minority voting against the Resolution represented no less than 999,000. This Bill was generally represented as being a contest between town and country; and he had no doubt that if he were to analyze the figures he had given a little more closely he would be able to show that the contest was one between the constituencies of the North with those of the South. He did not think the House should lose sight of the fact that in these large Northern constituencies the population during the last 10 years had enormously increased. It was no exaggeration to say that during the last 10 years the populations of some of the large Northern town shad increased much more largely than anywhere else. The population of Northumberland, for instance, had increased 12 per cent. The population of the county of Durham had increased 26 per cent; of Yorkshire, 18 per cent; of Derbyshire, 21 per cent; of Nottingham, 22 per cent; and of Leicester, 19 per cent. In all these large county constituencies, and in all the large urban populations, this Bill was immediately directed against the food supply. Without in the least wishing to impute motives to hon. Gentlemen who had promoted this legislation, it was obvious to him that it had been promoted by the Central Chamber of Agriculture and Chambers of Agriculture up and down the Kingdom. They knew how dear was still to the agricultural interest the objects and purposes of Protection. That interest knew that it was very probable that if the food supply of the people was diminished, their own interest would not be injured. When these discussions were raised, it should not be forgotten that amongst these enormously increasing populations to which he had referred there was not the same convenient opportunity of expressing opinions as had members of Chambers of Agriculture and such organizations. He could not help thinking that they were only at the commencement, and that they would find that, as this Bill had been promoted by these Bodies, before long foot-and-mouth disease in this country would be still existing, that they would have further restrictions, and that the amount of the food supply would be exposed to still further diminution. If that was the case amongst these very poor populations, and if some day they found when they went to the butcher that there was an increased price put upon the pieces of offal that they were in the habit of buying, the House would find that they had raised a very deplorable and formidable feeling throughout the country. The fault would lie, not with those who had opposed this measure, but with those who had promoted it.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 124; Noes 21: Majority 103,—(Div. List, No. 89.)

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the third time and passed, with Amendments.