Commons Sitting of 22 June 1928

Preamble
The House met at Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDIJ R,E (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
  The Chairman of Ways and Means reported, That, after conferring with the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords, for the purpose of determining in which House of Parliament the respective Bills introduced pursuant to the provisions of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, should be first considered, they had determined that the following Bill should originate in the House of Lords, namely:—
  Glasgow Corporation Bill. (Substituted Bill.)
  Report to lie upon the Table.
  London, Midland, and Scottish Railway Bil,
  Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  Lewes Water Bill [Lords],
  Plympton St. Mary Rural District Council Bill [Lords],
  Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  Port of London Bill [Lords],
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
  London County Council (Money) Bill (by Order),
  Third Reading deferred till Monday next.
  Cleveland and Durham County Electric Power Bill [Lords] (by Order),
  Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.
  Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways (Trolley Vehicles, etc.) Bill [Lords] by Order,
  Southampton Corporation Bill [Lords], (by Order),
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  Weald Electricity Supply Bill [Lords] (by Order),
  Wessex Electricity Bill [Lords] (by Order),
  Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.
  Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders Bill, Read the Third time, and passed.
  Aberdeen Corporation Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
  Considered; to be read the Third time upon Monday next.
  Lincolnshire Rivers Fisheries Provisional Order Bill,
  Read a Second time, and committed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  S.S. "JERVIS BAY."
  Captain GARRO-JONES(by Private Notice) asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Admiralty has now been able to establish complete wireless communication with the Liner "Jervis Bay'; whether the trouble was caused by stowaways or by mutiny; to what extent the captain's control of the vessel was interrupted, and whether it is now completely restored?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): At present wireless communication is possible only at night. The trouble was caused by stowaways. No information has been received by the Admiralty that the captain's control was interrupted at any time.
  Captain GARRO-JONES: Why did the captain ask that His Majesty's Ship "Enterprise" should proceed to his assistance And speedily give him some aid, if his control was not interrupted?
  Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Time alone can give an answer to that question.
  Captain GARRO-JONES: Has the Admiralty not taken the trouble to inquire, in view of the great public interest in this matter, and the fact that great anxiety exists as to the safety of the cargo, and even of the passengers themselves?
  Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The Admiralty have taken all such steps as were possible.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  As Amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Provision as to local Acts.)
    (1) Section one of this Act shall not apply to the slaughter of any animal in a slaughter house in the city and royal burgh of Glasgow so long as the provisions of section seventy-two of the Glasgow Corporation Order, 1927, as amended by the immediately succeeding sub-section of this section shall apply to such slaughter.
    (2) Section seventy-two of the Glasgow Corporation Order, 1927, shall be amended as follows:—

    (a) for the authorisation in writing referred to in sub-section (2) there shall be substituted a licence granted by the corporation; and

    (b) in lieu of sub-section (4) the provisions of section seven of this Act shall apply with the substitution of a reference to the provisions of the said section seventy-two for any reference to any provisions of this Act, and of a licence granted by the corporation for a licence granted by the local authority;

    (c) the provisions of section two of this Act shall apply to any licence granted by the corporation in like manner as they apply to a licence granted by the local authority.

    (3) Save as provided in the foregoing subsections the provisions of any local Act,, so far as inconsistent with this Act, shall cease to have effect.—[The Lord Advocate.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. William Watson): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    I shall explain briefly the effect of the proposed New Clause. As Glasgow got legislation of its own last year, it was found necessary to deal specially with the Glasgow position, and to deal with it apart from the general reference to local Acts which hon. Members will find at the beginning of Clause 4 of the Bill. There is an Amendment on the Paper to omit those opening words of Clause 4, but the closing words of the proposed New Clause, which I am now moving, will include that provision as regards every local authority except Glasgow. As regards Glasgow, they have, as I say, an existing Act and this New Clause has
    1932
    been adjusted with the Glasgow Corporation. The effect of Sub-section (1) of the New Clause is to leave the Glasgow Corporation Order, 1927, operative and exempted from the provisions of Clause 1 of the Bill, so long as it applies to the slaughter of any particular animals. As soon as it ceases to apply, then the Bill automatically applies to Glasgow. By Sub-section (2) the Glasgow provision which is contained in Section 72 of the Glasgow Corporation Order, 1927, has been amended so as to bring the existing Glasgow provision more into line with the machinery of the present Bill.
    Hon. Members will notice on reference to paragraph (a) that Whereas, at present, under the Glasgow Order, the authorities give what is called an authorisation, we are amending the Section so as to substitute for the authorisation the licensing machinery set up under Clause 2 of the Bill. That is done by paragraphs (a) and (c) of Sub-section (2) of the proposed New Clause and that provision will carry with it the conditions as to licences, with the right of appeal and the machinery which we have agreed to put in the present Bill. Paragraph (b) of Sub-section (2) refers to Sub-section (4) of Section 72 of the Glasgow Corporation Order which deals with the position of the Jews. We are substituting for that Sub-section (4) the provisions of Clause 7 of the Bill, so that the Jews, as regards the Jewish method of slaughter, shall be on the same footing as anywhere else under the Bill. Sub-section (3) of the proposed new Clause repeats, as regards everybody else except Glasgow, the present initial words of Clause 4 of the Bill, that being the more convenient Ns-ay of dealing with the matter and, as I have said, a subsequent Amendment proposes to take those initial words out of Clause 4.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Employment of slaughter-men by local authority.)
    Any local authority which has provided or established a slaughter house may, if they think fit, employ persons to slaughter or stun animals, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and may make such charges as they consider reasonable for the services of the persons so employed.—[The Lord Advocate.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    This New Clause will enable a local authority which has provided or established a slaughter-house, if they think fit, to employ persons to slaughter or stun animals in accordance with the provisions of the Bill. That does not mean that there is any obligation on them to do it. That is a matter for their discretion. There was some talk upstairs as to whether the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Acts and other Acts would apply to such men, and this proposal is in order to make sure that these workmen will come under such Acts. It will not, of course, prevent people who want to have animals slaughtered by private contract with private slaughterers from having it done if they so prefer. I may add that, as far as National Health Insurance is concerned, a Clause in the National Health Insurance Bill at present before Parliament will make sure that these people come under the scheme. It will enable slaughterers employed under contract to be brought under the Act, and they will be brought under it unless expressly excluded.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Provisions as to slaughter of animals, etc.)
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: I beg to move, in page 1, line 6, after the word "swine," to insert the words "sheep or calves under three months old."
    This is a Bill which seriously affects one of the most vital things in this country, and there is a great division of opinion upon it. The trade concerned is, to a very large extent, against the provisions of the Bill. I have here a memorial by the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture, the National Farmers' Union of Scotland, the Sheep Exporters' Association. the Scottish Meat Traders' Association, the Edinburgh Master Butchers' Association, the Scottish Federation of Meat Traders' Associations (incorporated), the Glasgow Wholesale Meat Salesmen's Association, the Glasgow United Fleshers' Society, the Glasgow Retail Fleshers' Society and the Cheviot Sheep Society. I am addressing myself mainly to the question of the inclusion of sheep in this
    1934
    Bill, though I have also included in my Amendment young calves, because there is the same difficulty in dealing with them as there is in dealing with sheep. There are 1,250,000 young hill lambs slaughtered and sent to England from Scotland throughout the year, and to the men who kill these animals, it is a matter of their daily bread. They know what they are about, and they are opposed to this Bill.
    When one realises that in a busy 24 hours a man may have to fire anything from 500 to 1,000 shots, it is bound to be a great and continuous shock to the slaughterer's nervous system, and it is liable to lead some time or other to serious injury to him. There is no use talking about laboratory experiments with a few score sheep, about which we hear so much. I am talking of the men who are in the trade and who know the business. When you realise the bad effects it may have on the slaughterer, who is a working man, to have this continuous concussion going on, I think you will realise on which side the balance of humanity is weighted. It is a very hard task that you are gutting up to these men, and I submit that, although this Bill professes to be urged in the interests of humanity, you are asking something that it is not very humane to do. Even in regard to the animal itself, there may be more risk of pain and suffering than by the ordinary methods of slaughter. I think the people who promote this Bill are not themselves very familiar with the habits and practices of dumb animals. They might not know that a sheep, above all animals, is a very difficult animal to keep stationary in order to fire a shot at its head, whereas, when it is held and the knife is used, one man can manage it. It will always take two men to operate this thing, however, [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Well, try it.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Has my hon. and learned Friend ever seen a sheep killed by the humane killer?
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: When I was a boy it used to be the habit to buy so many sheep, and I used to look after them and have the care of them, and I made them my friends. They all answered to their names. I had a number of little lambs, and I had them so tame that they answered to their names and

    1935
    followed me about, and, when the demand came periodically to slaughter them, I was asked, after a few occasions, if I would not catch the lambs for them. I used to say, "No," because it seemed to me to be a treacherous thing to do, but they pointed out to me that to chase them with a dog and terrify them before catching them and, then killing them was far more inhumane than for me to catch them. So I used to do it regularly. I saw the animal killed, and it was killed without any trouble and without any pain, as far as I could see. I was very fond of these animals. In my younger years, I used to shed tears of pity about them. I have always been an exceedingly humane man, all my life, and more humane than those who promote this Bill. I have always been fond of dumb animals and made them my friends. There are hardly any animals in this country that I have not made my friends. I have had at different times ferrets, rabbits, a tame hawk, guinea pigs, and all sorts of animals.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: The hon. and learned Member has not answered my question.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: I have not seen a sheep killed by a humane killer, and I hope I never shall. I have here a beautiful picture, in which you see the animal standing quietly. It has to be tied up and laid on a stool and held. Is not that a far more terrifying thing than keeping it between your knees to cut its throat? It is the same with the pig, of which I have another picture. It is far too plain, and it was taken apparently when no hon. Member knew anything about pigs. Look at it. Do you imagine that any pig stands quietly and lets people take it by the ear and put a pistol to its head? Of course not. It grunts, and away it goes squealing. No pig will allow you to hold it by the ear, unless it is a pig out of a circus. This is either a composite picture or a very unusual picture altogether, and these a-re the sort of childish things with which this House is being treated. I am surprised that the Iamb is not standing quietly waiting to be shot. It appears to be either tied up or stunned, because it appears to be half dead already. I say that it is going to be a great hardship on these people, whose daily bread it is. This is a conflict affecting people's daily bread, and
    1936
    there is the daily bread of other people involved in the promotion of this Bill.
    The firing of a bullet into a, sheep's head is always liable to error. If a man is firing from 500 to 1,000 shots a day, the time will come when he will make a miss, and somebody will be hurt. There are cases where burghs have made bye-laws, as they have power to do, but I understand, from a memorial which I have here, that there are no cases in which these by-laws have been extended to cover sheep. The memorial says:
    "There is no practice or experience in Scotland to warrant the inclusion of sheep in the present Bill. On the contrary, several corporations and numerous private individuals have experimented with mechanical weapons on sheep and satisfied themselves that they are not efficient or satisfactory."
    It would be quite possible to kill a few sheep by a mechanical killer, but when you get to the wholesale business, it is dangerous, and, moreover, it is costly. You need special men, who require some training. The ordinary slaughterman does not want it, and the cost would be very material. The promoters of the Bill say that it would cost 1d. a sheep, and the opponents of the Bill say that it would cost 3d. a sheep. Suppose we divide it and say it is 2d. a sheep. When we get into millions of sheep that is a heavy burden on the industry, and the export trade from Scotland, says the memorial,
    "is conducted on a small margin of profit and is in keen competition with imports from overseas."
    You have also this to consider, that if you damage a sheep's head by firing a bullet into its brain, in the first place you are liable to cause blood splash, and you get a sort of bloody mutton that will not sell well, and in the next place you smash its brain. You will have to take the heads off and pack them, and they will be much more liable to putrefaction. You will also have this difficulty, that you will have to behead the animal for greater security in keeping, and when you have it in the butcher's shop, you will have no means of distinction between Scotch mutton and foreign imported mutton.
    "The disadvantages would be accentuated in dealing with small hill lambs, which now form a large part of the sheep trade. Hundreds of thousands of these lambs, weighing from 23 to 25 lbs. are killed be-

    1937
    tween August and October yearly. They are restless little animals with small heads, and to kill them with a mechanical weapon under satisfactory conditions would be impossible."
    These are the words of skilled gentlemen representative of these agricultural industries. They have no interest in humanity; their one idea is to get on with the business with as little pain and suffering as possible, and with as little cost as possible, because that falls on the consumers. After all, animals are killed for the benefit of the people. The object is to provide good, sound food at as cheap a. rate as possible, and the people who put obstacles in the way of that are not humane people. The Glasgow Corporation were the very first authorities to get power to use the humane killer quite independently of the meat trade, and probably no corporation in Scotland has had a wider experience. They have power to impose it on all animals, but they have never applied it to sheep, because they know it is unworkable on sheep. The slaughtermen, as I have said, are entirely opposed to it. The memorial says that the workers are opposed to the use of these weapons.
    Mr. OLIVER: May I ask from what document the hon. and learned Gentleman is quoting?
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: It is a memorial to the Secretary of State for Scotland from the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture, the National Farmers' Union of Scotland, the Sheep Exporters' Association, the Scottish Meat Traders.' Association and other associations—all people interested in the trade. They are the people who really know. I want to make this appeal to the Scottish Members. Why is it that this Bill is being foisted! on Scotland and not on England? Why not have a Bill for the whole country? Do not victimise Scotland. Fancy the absurdity of just crossing the Border to find that in Carlisle the practice does not obtain.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: They have had this humane killer in Carlisle for years.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: But they have not used it for sheep. When the humane killer was introduced, the original intention was to secure safety for the men. Nobody eats oxen, but they do eat calves'
    1938
    head, which, with brain sauce, is one of the best dishes in this House, and I always take it. But no one would want to eat calves' head if the brains were destroyed by a bullet; therefore, it is damaging the food of the people. I do want Scottish Members to realise that we are being victimised by a society which is mainly an English society. When this Bill first came before the House, I paid very little attention to it, but when exaggerated speeches were made, I began to think there was something wrong, and I asked what people were at the back of these proposals? I have since discovered that it is the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. That Society has done a great deal of good, and has interpreted the view of the Anglo-Saxon people, which is kindness to animals. But, like all these organisations, it has to go on, and it must have a hare to chase to interest subscribers, and that is why they are going to deal with England and Scotland at different times.
    I suggest to the promoters of the Bill that they should introduce one Bill applicable to the whole country. I am very much surprised that the hon. and gallant Member for Dumfries (Brigadier-General Charteris), representing as he does a sheep country, should bring in a Bill of this sort which is bound to injure his own constituency. I am sure that all sheep farmers throughout the country are opposed to it. I ask the promoters of the Bill not to act as if they were the Scottish Office, and penalise Scotland first. Let the people who are promoting this Measure make it one for all the country, at any rate, and then we shall have equality. Do not make costly experiments which will make it difficult for the industry. Think of all the money that has been spent on these experiments! The real point is to get testimony like that in this memorial, which is presented by people who are engaged in the business. It is for Scottish Members to realise that their constituents will not thank them for passing a Measure which will have detrimental effects upon one of the leading industries in Scotland, while the English are being carefully left alone. When it comes to killing animals for the food of the people, there is very little choice with regard to humanity. There is no real difference whether the animals are killed by knife or hammer.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member is introducing into his speech a great deal that is not in his Amendment on the Paper. He is making something in the nature of a Second Reading speech.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: I just wanted to point out that, in the matter of cruelty, there is no particular choice between the one and the other, and that this Bill will very seriously affect the farming industry in Scotland. They are the people who ought to be listened to, and not those who really cannot justify this on solid grounds of humanity, or of the interests of the food supplies of the people.
    Mr. STEPHEN MITCHELL: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: I am sorry that on this occasion, almost for the first time, I should find myself in opposition to the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten). His speeches are always witty, and always amuse the House in the way that one would expect from the Don Quixote of our Debates who is often tilting at windmills. His speech makes two things clear. The lack of attention which he confesses that he gave to the Bill when it was introduced has not ceased; and he has obviously not studied the literature that has been generously provided, nor taken the trouble to investigate the actual facts of the slaughtering of animals, either in England or Scotland. When the hon. and learned Gentleman talks about sheep standing between the knees of the slaughterers and having their throats cut, one wonders that the hon. and learned Member should be so ignorant of what is the custom in the slaughter-houses in Scotland. He talks about pigs being held by the ear and having their throats cut; I am aware that there is a picture in one of the numerous pamphlets issued by a society with which I have no connection, but, when he talks of that as a custom perhaps to be introduced in the slaughterhouses of Glasgow, I can only say that my knowledge of what is happening in Glasgow is greater than that of the hon. and learned Member. The Amendment proposes to exclude sheep and calves. The main question is that of sheep, and what are the main arguments that have been advanced in favour of the Amendment by the hon. and learned Gentleman?
    1940
    The Seconder advanced no arguments. The only arguments were that there is not any humanity in the mechanical killer; that there may be a disturbance of trade and an extra imposition on the industry, and that Scotland may be put at a disadvantage in comparison with England. I will deal in no great length but in some little detail with each of these contentions.
    Let us take, first, the humanitarian argument, whether or not there is extra pain in the use of the knife for slaughter than by the mechanically actuated implement which is known as the humane killer. When the Bill was in Committee, a deputation came to the House of Commons, representing the meat trade, and addressed Members, not only of my own party, but also of the other parties, and they said, with apparently great sincerity, that the whole objection to the inclusion of sheep was that of humanity. They said that they would pass any loss involved, either on to the supplier of the sheep to the slaughter-houses, the farmer on the one hand, or to the consumer on the other. Because that was their main objection, I took great pains to find out what substance there was in the arguments for and against the humane killer from the humanitarian point of view. My first proposal was that there should be an experiment on a thousand animals in Glasgow. I should like to have seen that experiment, and I did all that I could to have it carried out. It was not carried out, because the proposals from Glasgow were made at such a late hour that it was impossible to have the experiment on a day that Glasgow first suggested, the 9th April. I offered any other day at the end of May or the beginning of June, and ultimately there was an experiment, but on a much smaller scale than I wished to have. The result of that experiment convinced me, from actual though unscientific observation, that on the humanitarian side of the question there was undoubtedly a balance strongly in favour of the mechanically actuated instrument. That was not by any means conclusive.
    Subsequently, on the 14th June, there was an experiment at Edinburgh conducted at the instance of the Chief Veterinary Officer of Edinburgh and attended by two independent scientists of Edinburgh, both men of high scientific

    1941
    attainments. They made the most carefully controlled experiment with the knife and the mechanically operated instrument on 60 animals. Members of the House have had the result of the experiment, but in case there may be any Member who has not had time to peruse it, I will summarise the result. These two scientific gentlemen, after a controlled experiment—and they were not in any way concerned either in the industry or, as far as I know, with any of the numerous humanitarian societies—examined this question purely from the scientific point of view. They made the decisive and conclusive recommendation that, from the humanitarian point of view the humane killer is superior to the knife. They added to that a scientific statement of the pain involved, and they said that from the time when the first incision of the skin is made by the bullet from the captive bolt of the mechanically contrived instrument, there elapses no more than four-fifths of a second until complete unconsciousness supervenes. With the knife the time was 33⅕ seconds. This means that with the humane killer unconsciousness is, for all intents and purposes, instantaneous. One may fairly say that 32⅕ seconds is the time which may be taken by an inefficient dentist in extracting from one's mouth a difficult tooth without the use of a local anæsthetic. There can be no doubt, from the humanitarian point of view, that the experiment conducted in Edinburgh proved conclusively that there can be no possible doubt that the mechanically impelled humane killer is superior to the knife in every respect.
    May I turn to the utilitarian point of view, to the argument which is advanced that, by the use of the humane killer, we shall put in the way of the trade financial and industrial difficulties which should outweigh all humanitarian considerations. I am no humanitarian fanatic, and I can realise that there may be considerations in modern life where, because of competition, it may be necessary to abandon for economic reasons a course which may be advocated by humanity. That is in no way the case which we are considering at present. Let us take the question of cost involved in the actual slaughtering. At the Glasgow experiment I took occasion to find out from the authorities of the slaughterhouse what would be the expenditure if
    1942
    no extra establishment were involved to meet the maximum pressure to which that slaughter-house would be put under the most extreme conditions, and I was told that six men, in addition to the present staff, would be able to kill all the animals that might be brought into the slaughter-house, and, as there would be additional men, there would be no loss of time. I do not say that it would be necessary to have that particular organisation. I have taken the worst possible case. The pay of those six men would be £3 10s. a week each, but I have calculated on a wage of £3 15s., to be safe. Six men at £3 15s. a week for 52 weeks would be round about £1,200 a year. I have the actual figure here, and it is £1,174. That is the maximum number which would be required for any one day at the greatest pressure. If you add to that figure of £1,174 the sum of £500 to represent incidental costs—and I do not think they would be anything like that—you will get a figure not far from £1,750. I would add to that another £250 to make my figures as conservative as possible. That gives a figure of £2,000 a year as the maximum cost involved as regards sheep slaughtered at the Glasgow slaughter-house.
    Hon. M embers may say that is not the same figure as appears in the memorandum issued in connection with the Glasgow case, which puts the cost at £3,000, but I am told that this figure includes the cost of the slaughter of all animals, Lot only sheep, because already in Glasgow the humane killer is used for the larger animals. But to get back to the figure of £2,000. The total number of sheep killed in Glasgow in a year is 400,000. If you apply those figures to one another you will find that the extra cost per sheep cannot under any circumstances be more than slightly in excess of one penny. Let us apply that cost of 1d. per sheep to the actual income derived from the sheep in the market. In the London market sheep fetch, approximately, and on the average, not less than something like £3 each. The cost, therefore, is a penny on an animal which is sold, including the offal and everything else, for about £3. Very elaborate calculations which have been made show that if the whole of the cost of the use of the humane killer for every animal in England and Scotland were distributed amongst the whole population

    1943
    the total cost could not exceed one farthing per head of the population in the year.
    I am quite aware that the calculations which had been submitted with regard to Glasgow do not exhaust the financial aspects of the case. The different conditions which operate in different areas must obviously make a difference in the calculation of costs, but I submit the figures in regard to Glasgow because, so far as I am aware, most of the opposition from the trade has come from Glasgow. Speaking from my own knowledge, and I have no doubt it can be confirmed by the Scottish Office, I think it is remarkable that neither the Corporations of Edinburgh nor Glasgow, nor, so far as I know, any of the great corporations, have sent petitions to the Scottish Office—certainly not to me—protesting against the inclusion of sheep in the Bill. The objections are confined to the trade. Quite obviously the corporations are not going to suffer in any way financially by reason of the slightly extra cost on the slaughter of the sheep. Can the farmer suffer? The hon. Member who moved this Amendment argued that whatever the extra cost involved in the slaughter of sheep in the slaughterhouse it would be passed on to the farmer, whether it were 1d. or 6d. I venture to disagree. As regards the butchers' side of the case—I am not arguing for the moment about the export trade—it is entirely impossible for the trade to pass it on to the farmers. The price the farmer gets for his sheep is governed by economic forces. It is not in the power of the butcher to say "I will pay you ld. less for your sheep because it will cost 1d. more to slaughter."
    I will turn now to the export trade. Here, I admit at once, is to be found the only argument against this Bill to which I think the House need give any serious consideration. The argument is that during the flush of lambs in the late autumn, when they are exported from Scotland to England, if there is an extra charge it will place the Scottish farmer and the Scottish dealer at a disadvantage with his English confrère in the markets in England. Extreme opponents of the Measure put the figure at. 3d. I say at once that if
    1944
    I believed that figure were correct, and if I believed that the Scottish farmer would suffer a disability of 3d., I should have to give very careful consideration as to whether it would not be desirable to make this Bill and the English Bill operate simultaneously. But as far as I can make out from my investigations among those engaged in the trade, that will not be the case. One of the best informed men engaged in the trade stated in my presence this morning or last night that any estimate of the cost involved is at best only an estimate. The maximum figure he quoted in his statement to me was 4d. As far as we can see, the maximum can be nothing like that.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Threepence was stated.
    Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: He mentioned 4d. to me. He put it at from 2d. to 4d., and we took the middle figure. He gave 4d. as the maximum. If that figure of 3d. is to be accepted it would appear that there might be some slight balance of argument in favour of deferring this measure until we could get simultaneous legislation for England. As far as one can judge, the passage of this Bill, if it is to be passed to-day, as I hope it will be, will in all probability be followed by the passage of the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman on the Opposition front bench extending similar provisions to England. At any rate, I very much hope that will be the case, both in the interests of humanity and also because I should dislike to have at the back of my mind the idea that there might be some inequality which would place the Scottish industry at a disadvantage in competition with the English.
    I think I have covered most of the grounds of objection to the Bill. The argument that the nerves of the butchers are going to he disturbed by the constant rattle of musketry if these animals are slaughtered by the humane killer need not, I think, be treated seriously. I think the nerves of butchers are made of sterner stuff.
    Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot have another Second Reading debate.
    Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: I only mentioned that in order to reply to what has been said. Another objection raises

    1945
    the question of whether the carcase and the head will not be damaged. On the question of the carcase, there are at the present moment 268 corporations in England which have passed by-laws requiring sheep to be killed by the humane killer, and I have figures which prove to me conclusively that the number of sheep slaughtered there is not less than 200,000. Even more remarkable than that, I have in my hand testimonials from a very large number of butchers using the humane killer who distinctly testify that the carcase of the animals is not in any way damaged.
    Now let us turn to the question of the head; and I think I shall be within the Rules of Order in dealing with the elusive bluebottle which the hon. and learned Member for Argyll said would settle on the brains of the animal. The opponents of this Bill have urged one objection after another against it, and as fast as conclusive proof is brought to dispose of any one objection they produce another. The elusive bluebottle was brought to my attention yesterday for the first time, and I have not, therefore, had an opportunity of finding out whether the bluebottle which is presumed to perch on the brain instead of on the blood really has a preference for a brain diet or for a blood diet. I would, however, point out that the time when we get the flush of lambs in Scotland is October, and my observations lead me to say that in October there are not many bluebottles in Scotland. I have spent many years abroad, and possibly my knowledge of the bluebottle is pretty extensive, but I have never yet observed a bluebottle showing a preference for any form of diet except blood. I think we may reject the idea that there is going to be any damage done to the carcase when it is killed by the humane killer. We also have evidence showing that the heads of the animals destroyed by the humane killer sell as readily as those killed by the other method.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: In England, it is usual to have the sheep's head without the brains, and in Scotland the brains are always used.
    Brigadier-General CHARTEIRIS: I do not think the arguments which have been used by the hon. and learned Member
    1946
    for Argyllshire are such as should influence the House to such an extent as to induce hon. Members to omit sheep from the Bill. Reference has been made to the practice in Glasgow, and it has been said that it was rather remarkable that the Glasgow Corporation had not introduced sheep under the Provisional Order which they have obtained. May I point out that that Order is not yet in force in Glasgow. In the interests of humanity, I think it is desirable that we should enforce the use of the humane slaughterer in the case of sheep. I do not believe there is any commercial difficulty about taking this course, aid I believe that the passage of this Bill will result in the passage of a similar Dill for England, with sheep included within a reasonable time. I hope the House of Commons will pass this Bill to-day and I commend to the House the importance of retaining in this Bill a provision providing for the slaughter of sheep by the humane killer.
    12.0 n.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The hon. and gallant Member for Dumfries (Brigadier-General Charteris) has furnished a complete answer to the speech made by the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten), and consequently it will not be necessary for me to add much to what has already been said. I do not wish on this occasion to give a silent vote. Like the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire, I represent an agricultural constituency, but, on this occasion, I reserve to myself the right to exercise my own judgment. I understood the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire to say that, he would have been willing to support this Measure in toto had it been applied to England as well. The only justification for the Amendment put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire is that the Bill does not apply to England. That does not appear to me to be sufficient justification to impede the progress of a Bill for Scotland which is being put forward in the interests of humanity. The Amendment we are discussing would destroy the Bill, and I do not think there is a single hon. Member of this House who would like to see the Bill destroyed. I shall oppose the Amendment, and, if necessary, I shall go into the Division Lobby against it.
    Dr. DRUMMOND SHIELS: If the House adopts the Amendment, it will have a very serious effect upon the Bill. The hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) is always entertaining, and I enjoy listening to his speeches, but I must confess that I have never heard him less convincing than he was to-day. The fact that he had to admit that he had never seen a sheep killed by the humane killer was very damaging to his case. To my mind, sheep require the use of the humane killer almost more than any other animal. The somewhat complicated operation of slaughtering sheep at the present time undoubtedly gives many opportunities for inflicting pain, and I think, if any animals deserve to have the benefit of a humane killer they are sheep. The promoters of this Bill, in deference to representations which have been made to them, have already consented to exclude swine from the Bill. I am very sorry that that has been done, and I confess that I never heard any good reason for it. It was done because it was the desire of the promoters to meet what was supposed to be a good case from the commercial point of view for the exclusion of swine.
    The promoters have also met the opposition in the very fairest way in another respect. During the Committee stage there was a difference of opinion as to the inclusion or exclusion of sheep. The promoters, thereupon, in conjunction with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, arranged for two demonstrations with the humane killer in Glasgow and in Edinburgh. I would like to pay my tribute to the valuable work done by the humane slaughter expert, Mr. Paddison, of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Professor Dryerre, one of the two judges of the demonstration in Edinburgh, is an old teacher of mine. He is a man of high scientific attainments, and he gave a most emphatic declaration as to the immediate loss of sensibility after the use of the humane killer. He says that the loss of sensibility occurs 33 seconds later by the ordinary method. It must be remembered also that in these two experiments in Glasgow and Edinburgh, expert slaughterers were employed, and we know that many sheep are killed by men and boys who are much less expert. In such cases the time that pain would en-
    1948
    dure would be very much longer. The promoter of this Bill has made out such a good case and has met the few objections which were raised by the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire so effectively that I do not think it is necessary for me to say any more.
    1 do hope, however, that the hon. and learned Member will withdraw his Amendment, and will realise that in this case Scotland, instead of being in the position of being the first victim, is in the position of being the pioneer, which should appeal to the ultra-Scottish sentiment of the hon. and learned Member. I hope that, looking at the matter in that light, he will withdraw the Amendment and allow us to be united on this question of the inclusion of sheep in the Bill.
    Mr. WESTWOOD: I desire to add my appeal to those which have been made to the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) to withdraw his Amendment. I want my position in connection with the Amendment to be quite clear. If I had to cast a vote on the question of humane slaughter, my vote, undoubtedly, would be cast in its favour, but I think it is right that it should be pointed out that, of all the experiments which have been carried out, and of all the demonstrations which have been made, there has been none which could really give us a proper idea of the manner in which sheep are going to be slaughtered, particularly in South Lanarkshire, Peebles and some other counties. The best demonstration that has been given up to the present has been with 100 sheep, but in one slaughter-house in my constituency there were actually slaughtered from 400 to 500 sheep in one day in the month of August. I was rather interested in the statement of the hon. and gallant Member for Dumfries (Brigadier-General Charteris), that he had never see a bluebottle in November. I accept that, but he evidently does not know that in my constituency the slaughter of sheep and lambs for the London market begins in August, and there are bluebottles in August.
    Mr. MacLAREN: With kilts on them?
    Mr. WESTWOOD: With kilts on them, in Scotland. I am merely pointing out

    1949
    that it is no argument, if these carcases are sent to market in the month of August—
    Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: I knew, of course, that they began in August, but I thought, though I may be wrong, that the time of pressure came at the end of September and the beginning of Octobers
    Mr. WESTWOOD: Quite so, but in my constitutency, as I have already said, the slaughter is begun in August, and goes on till March, and in one slaughterhouse alone they slaughtered last year 35,000 head of hill lamb, which is between what I may call a proper lamb and a sheep, and is the type which really gets the market so far as London is concerned. Again, no demonstration has yet been made, no experiment has been carried out, which conclusively proves to us that no danger could happen to those engaged in the slaughter-houses. The Bill does not make it clear that a captive bolt will have to be used. I think I am right in saying that the instrument will have to be licensed by the local authority, who may decide whether a captive bolt or a loose bolt shall be used, but I think it right to point out that no demonstration has yet been made under the same conditions under which sheep are slaughtered in these slaughter-houses in Peebles-shire, South Lanark, and some other areas in Scotland. With regard to the very able statement which has been sent to Members of the House by the hon. and gallant Member for Dumfries and the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore), the remarkable thing is that the letters in the appendix attached to that statement are written mostly by one individual, though, unless you are very careful, you are apt to think that they are from three very important individuals. I notice that a Mr. John Robertson is satisfied that the same Mr. John Robertson is satisfied that exactly the same Mr. John Robertson is satisfied with the use of the mechanical killer. There are three letters which are all from the same firm, and signed by the same individual; it is merely the dates that are different. I do not think it is quite good enough to palm off on Members of the House of Commons a thing of that kind as evidence in favour of the humane killer.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Surely, the hon. Member is aware that there are some hundreds of satisfied butchers throughout the country. I can give him their names and addresses and statements in a few minutes if he requires them.
    Mr. WESTWOOD: I also accept that statement, but in no case are they butchers supplying the London market.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I must again point out that the hon. Member's statement is not correct.
    Mr. WESTWOOD: I submit that the same conditions have to be fulfilled as in the case of Peebles-shire and South Lanarkshire in particular. I am merely pointing out these things, not because I am hostile to the inclusion of sheep, but because I think it is fair that we should know exactly where we are in connection with this matter. Personally, I have been convinced almost at the last moment that there is more humanity in the slaughter of sheep by the use of the mechanical killer than by the knife, but I do want to protest against what appears to me to be a farce, a sham and a hypocrisy in connection with this agitation. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals sent out documents to Members of this House advocating the inclusion of sheep in this Bill, but is it not sheer hypocrisy for an organisation of that kind to interest itself in the inclusion of sheep in this Bill when they themselves absolutely refuse to take action against the cruel blood-sports that are carried on in this country? Again, while the four hon. Members whose names are on the back of the Bill are desperately anxious to save a sheep 33 seconds so far as pain is concerned, they supported the addition of 60 minutes of intense pain and agony to the miners of this country every day in the year. I submit that that is sheer canting, hypocritical humbug on the part of Members of this House to plead for humanity to animals when they refuse to give ordinary common decency and humane treatment to human beings. I think it only right, as representing a constituency which is both an agricultural and a mining constituency, to make clear to the House my detestation of the advocacy of those who, while they are so desperately anxious to save pain to four-footed animals, yet sought to impose

    1951
    intense pain and misery on two-footed animals of our own kind, particularly in the mines.
    I sincerely hope that the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire will withdraw his Amendment, because I realise that, if it be carried, it will really destroy the purpose of the Bill, and I believe that there is a sincere feeling in the House that, even although we have not, as a House, been prepared to give a fair deal to human beings, we at least are determined to-day to give a fair deal and fair play to animals so far as humane slaughter is concerned, and, accordingly, are prepared to include in this Bill sheep, one of the mildest and tamest of animals, which certainly goes to give us good food. In providing that good food, let us be as humane as possible so far as the slaughter of the animals is concerned.
    Mr. BARR: I wish to go back for a moment on the history of this subject. When it came to the Committee this year, we found that swine were already excluded. That, I believe, was under an arrangement made in connection with the previous Bill. At any rate, we did not contest that as much as we should have desired, and I still think, that swine should have been included. This matter of the exclusion of sheep came forward as an afterthought. It came forward after the Measure was through Committee. While mention was made, I think, of the possible exclusion of sheep, there was nothing approaching any strong or organised body of opinion insisting on it. As was indicated by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Dumfries (Brigadier-General Charteris) who has put forward a strong case and put it forward well, we have had deputations representing the meat traders and the Farmers' Union and so forth. We were ready to give all due weight to their opinion. I am a farmer's son, and I am inclined to do anything that I can to support anything that they bring before us. I had an open mind until these experiments were made, but I think they are quite conclusive, and that, however much we respect the opinions that were brought before us by the meat traders and the farmers, we find ourselves as humanitarians and as practical men bound to press for the inclusion of sheep. If you exclude sheep, your ex-
    1952
    ception is going to be far bigger than your rule. The statistics for live stock in one of these memoranda is something like 27,000,000, and 12,000,000 cattle. More than half the mutton that comes to Smithfield is from Scotland; therefore if you exclude swine, as you have done, and then exclude sheep, you are leaving a mere skeleton of a Bill which is hardly worth passing.
    I differ from one remark of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that, after all, whatever might be our humane consideration, if you found there was even a small deflection from economic results you might have to forgo your humanitarian principles in the economic interest. I believe the humanitarian instincts should always get the first place, and, if you are not true to them, you will in the end find that you are the losers in any economic sense. But the economic adverse influence is negligible and can well be disregarded in view of the large humanitarian advance that is made. We are not entering on an untried path. I think some 268 local authorities in England, under Clause 9 (b), under which they have powers, have adopted humane killers. I think I saw it stated that in 24 large cities or towns in England there are already 160,000 sheep being killed by the humane killer, and we have ample and un-answerable testimony from all parts that it is being successfully carried out. Even in Scotland, under the by-laws of the Scottish Board of Health, there are 73 local authorities and 23 county authorities practising these humane methods. Of course, one argument is that accidents are possible, and have occurred. I can well believe it, but in every new effort in human progress you have to run risks and you have to meet with accidents. With other Members last evening, I heard Sir Alan Cobham giving an account of his air trips. But a few years ago we know what absolute danger attended the mounting of an aeroplane or anything of that kind. I am surprised that there have been so few accidents in this matter and that on the whole it has been so safely carried through.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Does the Hon. Member suggest that Sir Alan Cobham was compelled by legislation to fly?
    Mr. BARR: It does not seem to me that the element of compulsion enters

    1953
    into it. I would give two answers to the hon. and learned Gentleman. The first is that, even with flying, you will introduce, and have introduced, and will continually introduce, by legislation methods to make flying safer than it has been. The other argument is that, whatever may be the voluntary efforts of man in the path of progress, this House has from time to time to come in with the strong hand of compulsion, so that what has been proved in a voluntary way to be carried out successfully will be, under compulsion, brought to serve the common good. It is true it is voluntary at present, but, just because it has proved so successful in a voluntary way, we are introducing the element of compulsion and applying it to Scotland as a whole instead of giving power to local authorities. That is a sufficient answer to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's interruption—[Interruption]—the hon. and learned Member. As far as our debates are concerned, he is gallant. Even in his opposition to-day he is gallant, and he is brave enough in taking up the position he has done. The suggestion has been made that we are doing for Scotland something that is not being done for England. It is not the first time Scotland has set a good example to England. To-day, we have two Bills, both of modest proportions, applicable to Scotland. Surely you will give us something—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not encourage a Second Reading Debate. We must stick to sheep and calves.
    Mr. BARR: I wish to say, sticking to sheep and calves, that I hope this House will give us at least one ewe lamb to-day for Scotland, one modest Measure—two modest Measures indeed. I have great pleasure in giving my support to the Bill as against this Amendment.
    Mr. WRIGHT: I do not want to give a silent vote on this question. I failed to vet into the Debate yesterday against the inhuman slaughter of many of my fellow men and I should like to say a few words on behalf of this Bill. I have, perhaps, an advantage over the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) inasmuch as I have seen the humane slaughter method in force, and, in my judgment, it is absolutely conclusive. I do not think one need say very much
    1954
    more on the question after the very excellent speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Dumfries (Brigadier-General Oharteris), with which I am in entire agreement. I was a little surprised at the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire. He quoted evidence which he has received from various societies, but he makes a point of ignoring entirely the evidence which he has probably received on the other side.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: I specially referred to the pictures sent out to Members and literature therewith.
    Mr. WRIGHT: The hon. Member did not refer to the documents which he has probably received from the co-operative societies, and which would have been deadly from the point of view of his own argument. There is a further point with regard to the export of mutton and lamb to Smithfield. The hon. and learned Member and his colleagues, to some extent, are responsible for that, because we have over 4,500,000 people in Scotland with something like a third of them at the present time in a state of semi-starvation because they cannot afford to buy the food produced on the Scottish hills. The hon. and learned Gentleman is apparently partly responsible for that state of affairs as far as the industrial areas are concerned. If we are going to talk upon these lines, charity and justice should begin at home, and we should not trouble about the export of sheep as far as Scotland is concerned. I will conclude with this observation, that I have always regarded the man who puts his foot needlessly on a worm as a slightly inhuman being. I am entirely in favour of humanitarian principles. I have, as I have already said, and I wish to emphasise the fact, had the privilege of witnessing the humane killer at work on one day this week, and if all hon. Members here could have seen it at work they would have been absolutely convinced as to the value of the machine.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Major Elliot): Before the House goes to a vote, I think that it is necessary to say a word as regards the attitude of the Government on this subject. It is a private Members' Measure, introduced by private Members and discussed by them, and the Government do not, of course, take up an official attitude

    1955
    upon the subject in the way of putting on the Whips. It is left to a free vote of the House. As hon. Members know, Friday is a private Members' day and it would be most injudicious for the Government to interfere with the official weight of their organisation either on one side or the other. The opinion that the Secretary of State for Scotland has on the subject and that we in the Scottish Office have has been made perfectly clear by the Secretary of State on more than one occasion, and I wish to reiterate it again at this Box this afternoon. The Bill has been before us now for some considerable time in one form or another. It was brought up a year ago and passed through the Committee stage, although it was unable on that occasion to pass through any further stages. When it was brought up again, had its Second Reading, and came before the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills, the Secretary of State for Scotland, speaking on 1st March, 1928, said:
    "I think the opinion of the public outside is broadly in favour of progress in this matter, and I believe that to be the view of the House of Commons as a whole.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee on Scottish Bills, 1st March, 1928, Col. 19.]
    It seems to me that the course of the Debate shows that the particular Amendment before the House does not meet with the approval of the majority of the Members. I am not quite certain whether the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) realises that in the terms of his Amendment it applies only to sheep as well as to calves under three months old. I do not know whether that is his intention or not, but, if that be so, the case for the vast majority of sheep has been abandoned by him altogether. I do not know whether that is the intention with which he moved the Amendment, but, as it reads now, it would leave all sheep to be slaughtered by the mechanical method except sheep under three months old. It is quite clear to us, that whether purposely or inadvertently, that that would mean that the vast majority of sheep in Scotland would, according to the hon. and learned Member's own Amendment, have to be slaughtered by use of the mechanical method.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: If that is the interpretation put upon it by the hon. and gallant Gentleman's department, it is not the interpretation that I put upon it. It applies only to calves and not to sheep. I could put in a comma if necessary.
    Major ELLIOT: I do not think that the introduction of a comma will make any difference one way or the other. It says "sheep or calves under three months old," and this would be read in the Courts as meaning sheep under three months old and calves under three months old. Another point which was raised, and one of some substance, was: What is the position of Scotland as against England? Is Scotland going to be prejudiced with regard to England? We understand that similar legislation for England is to he introduced by one of the right hon. Members sitting on the Front Opposition Bench. We therefore consider this as an instalment of legislation applicable to the United Kingdom. If that be so, I see no reason, from the temper of the House this afternoon, to judge that the English Members are in any way desirous of making any reservations for themselves. If it be true that this piece of legislation is merely an instalment which will be completed and rounded off by a Measure applicable to England, it will therefore become a system of legislation applicable to the whole country. Accordingly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is prevented from attending owing to a Cabinet Meeting, has asked me to convey his regret to the House that he is not able to be here himself, asks me to say to the House that he would be opposed to the exclusion of sheep as provided for by this Amendment.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: It is being suggested that this Measure is an instalment of what is coming to England. If my hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Dumfries (Brigadier-General Charteris). the promoter of the Bill, will agree that this Bill is to come into operation under the rules and resolutions of the Secretary of State for Scotland, then this Bill can wait till the English Bill comes on, and I do not see why that should not be done.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. and learned Member wish to press his Amendment?
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Yes.
    Amendment negatived.
    The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. MACQUISTEN:
    In page 1, line 8, at the end, to insert the words:
    "Provided that the local authority may from time to time resolve that the provisions of this Act shall not apply to any class of animals for such period or periods as they think fit."
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: I do not move.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 1, to leave out from the word "second," in line 25, to the word "pounds" in page 2, line 2, and to insert instead thereof the words:
    "conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds or on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a period not exceeding sixty days or to a fine not exceeding twenty".
    We had considerable discussion in Committee and, indeed, we had it discussed on the previous Bill a year ago, with regard to the form of the penalties. As the Bill stands at the moment, there is a differentiation between the first and subsequent offences, and considerable discussion arose as to how far it was fair on a second offence to give a power to imprison without the option of a fine. I think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland undertook to consider this matter further, and the result, at any rate, is the Amendment which is on the Paper, Hon. Members will see that we are only dealing here with the maximum, and what is possible, and, in considering the maximum, we want in a sense to consider the worst cases, and not the trivial cases, which latter can adequately be dealt with within the maximum. In view of the opinions that were expressed, my right hon. Friend has taken the view that it will be fairer to postpone the harder sentence until the third or subsequent conviction, and the Bill after the Amendment is inserted will, in effect, read a maximum fine of ten pounds for the first offence, a maximum fine of twenty pounds for the second offence, and, on a subsequent conviction, imprisonment—hard labour has been dropped out—not exceeding 60 days
    1958
    —it is 60 days instead of three months; that has also been reduced by a month—or a fine not exceeding £20. After full consideration, we think that that will not be an unreasonable maximum because the person we are most anxious to catch is the gentleman who thinks it is worth his while to go on committing a breach of the Act. We want to prevent it being worth his while to do that. I hope that the Clause with this Amendment will meet generally the views of the House.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 2, line 28, at the end, to insert the words:
    "( ) The provisions of this Section shall apply to any licence granted by the local authority for the purpose of the provisions of this Act, with regard to the Jewish method of slaughter."
    The object of the Amendment is to provide that although the Jewish method of slaughter is to be a special method provided for by Clause 7 the slaughterers who are operating the Jewish method of slaughter, and who are selected primarily by the Chef Rabbi, shall also require to pass the qualifications of the local authorities. This new Sub-section provides for that necessity.
    Captain FOXCROFT: In regard to the Jewish method of slaughter hon. Members will note that under Clause 7 the Chief Rabbi is to be the sole authority for licensing the Jewish slaughterers. I am not a Jew and I do not know a great deal about Jews but I had a talk with a Rabbi yesterday and he informed me that the Chief Rabbi does not represent all the Jews. There are two wings besides that section of Jews represented by the Chief Rabbi; there is the right wing and the left wing, each of which elects a Chief Rabbi to represent itself. I have been wondering whether it would be possible in another place to insert in place of the words "the Chief Rabbi" the words "a Chief Rabbi," which would then include not only Dr. Hertz, the present Chief Rabbi, but also the Chief Rabbis who represent the right wing and the left wing of the Jewish religion, who are not at present actually represented by the Chief Rabbi.
    Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 3, to leave out

    1959
    the word "method" and to insert instead thereof the words "and Mohammedan methods."
    The purpose of this Amendment to the proposed Amendment is primarily to meet the case of shipping which comes into our ports manned by Mohammedan crews. The Mohammedan religion does not, I understand, lay down so stringently—as does the Jewish religion, in regard to food consumed by Jews—that the food consumed by Mohammedans must be slaughtered actually by a Mohammedan, but it does lay down that the food shall be prepared by method prescribed by the Koran, and the only way of ensuring that is to say that it shall be prepared by a Mohammedan. This is an agreed Amendment between the shipping community, who brought to the notice of the Scottish Office and the promoters of the Bill the position of their Lascar crews, and it has also been agreed to by all the corporations concerned in the ports where these particular ships come. Food may be slaughtered on the ship by Mohammedans, but that does not come under the Act. In certain ports it is impossible for the food to be slaughtered on the ships, and in regard to the crews who are waiting for another ship and have to be on shore it is proposed to ask the local authorities to licence a Mohammedan to slaughter for the Mohammedans. The shipping community have, I understand, requested that, as far as possible, the man who is to receive the licence should he a member of the crew. That is not actually included in the wording of our Amendment but there is no reason to anticipate, nor is it the intention, that the custom which obtains in any of the ports as regards a partiular Mohammedan who does slaughter for the Mohammedans should be departed from in any way. That is to say that in any port where the slaughterer has been a member of the crew, in all probability he will continue as the slaughterer under the licence of the local authority, when the Act comes into operation.
    Mr. LOUGHER: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment. This provision is to meet the cases of Mohammedans who come to Scottish ports on board ship. I do not think there are a large number of permanent resident Mohammedans in Scotland but, certainly,
    1960
    there is a considerable floating population of Mohammedans. The number of Lascars who come into the ports of Glasgow, Leith and Dundee total very many thousands during a year. I think the average number of Lascars in port is about 600 to 800 per day in Glasgow and about 100 per day in Leith, and it is necessary to make some special provision for them. I do not think there can be any objection to our doing that. It would be a very serious matter if provisions were not made in this respect, because it would deprive the Lascar crews from having their food prepared in the manner to which they have been accustomed, and it would not tend to a smooth working of the Act. If and when the Act becomes law, and I hope it will pass, we want to see it work effectively and smoothly. On these grounds, I hope the House will agree to the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: My right hon. Friend was approached, after the Committee stage, by the shipowners, who brought this point before him, and he was satisfied that it was a point that ought to be met. The same provision applies here as to the Clause which applies to the Jewish methods. Therefore, we are prepared to ask the House to accept the Amendment to the proposed Amendment. The slaughterers in this ease, as in the case of the Jewish slaughterers, will require the licence of the local authority.
    Dr. SHIELS: I do riot like this Amendment to the proposed Amendment, and I am sorry that it has been found necessary to move it. There was no question in regard to the Jewish method of slaughter, but I do not want to increase the number of these exceptions. Although I am not familiar with the details of the Mohammedan method of slaughter, I understand that it means cutting the throat in a very crude sort of way. I should like to know whether this crude method of killing is to be preceded by stunning with a mechanical killer in the same way as in the case we have just considered. While we are sympathetic with any special case of this kind we must be careful not to make too many exceptions, and they should not be made unless they are absolutely necessary. I should be glad if the promoters of the Bill will explain

    1961
    a little more carefully the religous necessities, because I have never understood that there was the same religous significance attaching to the method of slaughter in the case of Mohammedans as in the case of Jews.
    Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: I will try arid deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Dr. Shiels). It is quite true that I cannot say that Mohammedans in India would refuse to eat an animal which has been stunned first and then had its throat cut according to the Mohammedan method as that happens frequently when shooting animals, but while that is true in the strict interpretation of the Mohammedan religion it is not in accordance with their principles, and we have to be extremely careful when we are dealing with their religious principles. The Lascars, who are Mohammedans, are a very grave class of men and, while they are not authorities on the niceties of their religion, they are very sincere and might resent having to eat food which they were convinced had not been killed according to the strict interpretation of the Koran. Anyone who has had to deal with Mohammedans knows that they will grumble, and their grievance is liable to find expression in different ways. A ship comes into port and the crew of Lascars, discontented because of some action on the part of the captain, may be expressing their grievance by finding fault with the way the food was prepared. We cannot be too careful in dealing with the religious beliefs of what is a somewhat important section of the Empire's population. I think we should have some regard to their prejudices.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
    Proposed words, as amended, there inserted in the Bill.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Revocation of inconsistent provisions.)
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 3, line 1, to leave out from the beginning to the word "any" in line 2.
    This is consequential on what we have already done. The words are re-inserted in the new Clause we have already passed.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 6.—(Saring.)
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
    This Clause is unnecessary as it adds nothing to the Bill. It must have crept in by some misunderstanding, and it would be better away.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 7.—(Saving for Jewish method of slaughter.)
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 3, line 36, after the word "of" to insert the words "section one of."
    This Clause deals with the slaughter of animals for the food of Jews by a Jew duly licensed for the purpose it such slaughtering is carried out according to the Jewish method of slaughter and no unnecessary suffering is inflicted. We propose to limit the opening words of the Clause by excluding from the application of the Clause only Section (1) of the Bill. It is not proposed to exempt the man who slaughters from any by-laws made for the prevention of cruelty in the treatment of animals before slaughter. It is not intended to exempt them from these by-laws, but only from the compulsory use of mechanical slaughter, and therefore we propose that the opening words should be:
    "The provisions of Section one of this Act shall not apply where an animal is slaughtered"
    and so on.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 3, line 38, after the word "Rabbi" to insert the words "and holding a licence granted by the local authority."
    This is consequential on what we have already passed and provides that the slaughterer shall hold a licence granted by the local authority.
    Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: I should lilac to say one word in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Bath (Captain Foxcroft), who raised the point as to whether the granting of the licence should be limited to the Chief Rabbi, but extend it to any Rabbi. That consideration was before the promoters of the Bill and received very careful attention, and

    1963
    I regret that we cannot agree to it. One of the main reasons why we cannot accept the proposal is that the restrictions we are proposing in this Bill are now in force in England. I desire to support the Amendment moved by the Lord Advocate.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: I beg to move, in page 3, line 38, after the word "Rabbi" to insert the words
    "or for the food of Mohammedans by a Mohammedan holding a licence granted by the local authority."
    In the observations I have already made I have covered the whole of the grounds for this proposal, and I will not repeat them again.
    Mr. LOUGHER: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: I beg to move, in page 3, line 39, after the word "Jewish" to insert the words "or the Mohammedan."
    This Amendment is consequential.
    Mr. LOUGHER: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: I beg to move, in page 3, line 40, after the word "slaughter" to insert the words "as the case may be."
    This is a drafting Amendment.
    Mr. LOUGHER: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 9.—(Short title and commencement.)
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: I beg to move, in page 4, to leave out from the word "until" in line 27 to the end of the Clause and to insert instead thereof the words:
    "rules and regulations have been made and promulgated by the Secretary of State for Scotland, who shall be empowered to vary, revoke, or suspend the same. Such rules and regulations shall be laid before Parliament in the customary manner."
    This Amendment is entirely consistent with the purpose of the Bill. It will
    1964
    enable those concerned to go ahead with an English Bill so that the two countries can work side by side instead of one being penalised at the expense of the other. If we cannot agree to this Amendment, I say to Scottish Members, "You may consider yourselves patriotic Scottish gentlemen, but you are prepared to make rules for Jews and Mohammedans at the expense of your fellow-countrymen."
    Amendment not seconded.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
    Mr. GROVES: I am very much surprised as a Member for an English constituency that we in England have not made determined attempts to pass a Bill which would make humane slaughter obligatory. I have been surprised also at the spirit of compromise which has been shown to-day, to the extent of the removal of words by which we tried to impose the condition that there should be no unnecessary suffering inflicted in slaughter-houses and the insertion in their place of the words "as the case may be." I have great respect for the religions of foreign nations, but I always feel that when foreigners visit a country they should leave their habits and traditions at home and fall in with the customs of the country that they visit. I do not wish to make any violent protest against what has been done by Scottish Members in agreeing to these changes in the Bill, and I say that because we in England have not any such Measure at all. But at the same time, for hon. Members of this House to agree that cattle shall have their throats cut before being stunned is in my opinion not a step in the right direction but a retrograde step.
    I can well imagine that our next effort will be to "trim our sails" so as to accord with the customs of Asiatic nations, and that if the Chinese compel animals to undergo peculiar contortions before being killed, in order that we should not offend the susceptibilities of Chinese on our ships Parliament will fall in with Chinese wishes. Against that I make my protest. I have lived for some years next door to a butcher's shop and slaughter-house. I have seen slaughtering take place repeatedly. I have seen the gradual development from the old

    1965
    pole-axe to the present more humane method. I say frankly that anyone who has seen these things, whatever his religious convictions, will feel as I feel, that if we believe in theology or God or the Architect of the Universe, it is not our right to inflict suffering or pain even on dumb animals. I have seen the blessings, if I might use that word, that come from the use of humane methods of slaughter as against the use of the old pole-axe. I have seen pigs killed, and sheep that have had the artery of the gullet slit so that they could be left to bleed for a long time until dead, the assumption being that this process will increase the value of the meat. All that inflicts suffering and torture on the animals.
    1.0 p.m.
    It is a very bad compromise indeed when we in this country adapt our principles to fit in with the old-time traditions, customs and religions of people who visit this country. When I was a student I was interested in reading of the religions of Mexico. If the old-time Mexicans could visit this country and they wanted some peculiar provisions introduced into this Bill in order to fit in with their religion, I wonder whether we would acquiesce? In the old religion of Mexico the chieftains used to be proclaimed warriors and victors, and at their annual Easter feast they used to put as many human hearts as possible into a cauldron. Of course that sort of barbarous spirit has gone with the advent of civilisation. I would not offend the feelings of any other religious body, but I do feel that all religion should he directed towards maintaining not only civilisation but a strong Christian, human attitude and the relief of suffering in animals. If I had any support, I would divide the House against the Third Reading of the Bill. In any case I must raise my voice against the House agreeing to the imposition of cruel methods of slaughter in ships merely to satisfy the whims or even the religious traditions of people who visit our shores.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I came to this Debate armed with a complete refutation of every possible argument that the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) might submit against the Bill. In fact I became rather unhappy on behalf of the hon. and learned Mem-
    1966
    ber, for I felt that his castigation at my hands would be too severe. Then I found that all my projected efforts were unnecessary, and that the sweat that I had used in compiling what I thought would prove admirable support of the Bill was wasted, since my thunder had been stolen by others who were far more capable of dealing with the matter. There is, however, one thing to which I wish to refer. On the occasion of the last Debate on this Bill, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Argyllshire referred, I think rather unnecessarily, to my immoderate language. It may have been immoderate, but on the other hand some of the statements made to-day by that same hon. and learned Member were to my mind far more immoderate, for whereas my statements were based on facts, the hon. and learned Member's statements were based on ignorance. The hon. and learned Member, when the Bill was in Committee, made the statement that throughout the country there was no attempt to use this humane instrument on sheep.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Does my hon. Friend dispute the fact that there are 3,500 slaughter-houses in England, and that only about two per cent. are used for sheep?
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: It has already been demonstrated that there are over 200 local authorities in England which have voluntarily adopted this by-law, and last year in England alone there were 927 sheep slaughtered by this method. We have arrived at a time when progress must be made and made in the direction indicated by the Bill. There was a statement made by the hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. S. Mitchell), that the sheep struggles when about to be slaughtered and has to be held down by two or three men. That statement shows that the hon. Member has either been misinformed or has received inadequate information on the subject, because we who have seen these demonstrations, both in Glasgow and in Edinburgh, have seen that this is one man's job. It ought to be a one-man job. I do not say that it is desirable that one man should perform the whole operation, but we have seen one man doing it efficiently, and, obviously, it is going quite outside the bounds of fact to say that it takes

    1967
    two or three men to hold down the unfortunate sheep while the operation is taking place. I would, again, refer to that memorial which has been the subject of so much discussion to-day. The memorial which has been addressed to the Secretary of State by a number of associations would give to a Member who was not cognisant of all the facts of the case, the impression that Scotland was united in opposition to the Bill.
    From my own inquiries I do not think that that very commanding list of associations represents anything more than a few very keen, very vocal and very enthusiastic opponents. Furthermore, the memorial was issued before the Edinburgh demonstration and that demonstration was absolutely in favour of the use of the killer. The hon. and gallant Member for Dumfries (Brigadier-General Charteris) has pointed out the admirable statement of its humanitarian qualities given by two eminent doctors in Edinburgh. I will not, therefore, deal further with that memorial except to say that although the impression may have been gained by some that the bulk of the butchers in Scotland are against the Bill, I had a wire yesterday from Edinburgh stating that the President of the Master Butchers' Association of Edinburgh did not come to the House of Commons yesterday for lobbying purposes because he was satisfied that the new method was better. I think that is one of the most convincing arguments in favour of the Bill. Here is the President of an association which is concerned with this trade—a man who has knowledge of the trade, and he has confessed to being converted.
    We have so many statements in favour of our case and so much confirmation of our attitude, that it seems almost unnecessary to say anything further, but there was one point referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire which I should like to mention. He spoke of the number of accidents and of the danger incurred through the use of the pistol. I have been making meticulous inquiries to ascertain where the danger lay, and whether it was very prevalent, and the only information which the Butchers' Federation could submit to the Corporation of London
    1968
    when they were carrying out the big test in 1925 was that there had been 15 accidents in the space of seven years. When these accidents were investigated it was found that five were cases of suicide, that four had no connection with the use of the pistol and that six were with the use of the free bullet. I feel that the use of the free bullet does offer certain dangers and I am far more in favour of what we call the captive bullet; but even if it were decided to use the free bullet, and even if some danger were involved, there is danger in everything. There is danger in travelling by aeroplane and there is danger in walking in the park.
    Mr. W. THORNE: There is danger in talking in the House.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Not for hon. Members opposite. Therefore I put it to the House that though there have been these six demonstrable cases in seven years, that is no reason why butchers and slaughtermen should be debarred from the use of this humane method.
    Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being present—
    Mr. GOSLING: I rise to dissociate myself from the remarks made by the hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Groves). I wish to inform the House that this Clause 7 has been carefully thought out and has been agreed to, over a very long period of time. A very large number of those whom I represent and I may say all the Jews in the country would regard any action of the kind suggested, taken at this moment, after that agreement had been reached, as a very unfriendly act. I protest in the strongest way I can against the very unkind remarks made with reference to a very worthy set of people.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: The hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Groves) has put forward a view which, no doubt, he sincerely holds from his own standpoint, but it is very important to observe that in this country we have no principle at all for dealing with this matter. Vegetarianism is not accepted by the general body of

    1969
    people in this country and I do not suppose the hon. Member for Stratford himself is a vegetarian, although he is an anti-vaccinationist. What we have to deal with here might fitly be described as a question of choice between two evils. If large bodies of people identified with certain religious conceptions and convictions are received into this country and allowed to settle here, we, who agree to the killing of animals for food, would be acting hypocritically if we did not concede to those other people, the right to practice variations in the methods of killing.
    Mr. GROVES: On a point of Order. Would the hon. Member agree to having wine at a religious feast?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): That is not a point of Order.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: That is a point which leads to disorder. As I was saying, we have no principle ourselves on which we can take exception to other people having variations in the method of killing. The general body of the people are agreed upon this position of the killing of animals for food purposes, and I believe that if we did reach the standard of vegetarianism individually science would quickly prove, and it is proving far more steadily than ever, that in regard to the particular issue of cancer we would be doing a big thing in the interests of the people at large if we did establish the principle, but as it stands now, as we have not got that principle, there is no case for setting up exceptions to other people exercising a simple choice of method from a religious point of view.
    Commander WILLIAMS: I should like to express the view that I hope the Government will not hasten to copy the Scottish example in this connection until they have seen exactly how the Scottish experiment works. There are risks and dangers attached to it, and I am glad to see Scotsmen once again doing pioneer work, but I hope we shall wait and see whether there are disadvantages which perhaps have not been foreseen and whether the disadvantages that have been put before us are genuine, before we, as a country, follow suit.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the Third time, and passed.

BETTING (JUVENILE MESSENGERS) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
BETTING (JUVENILE MESSENGERS) (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Prohibition of the use of young persons in the conveyance or delivery of messages or information relating to betting.)
  The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 2, line 2, after the word "years" to insert the words:
  "(not being an officer of the Post Office acting in the course of his duty)."
  It may be argued that this Amendment is unnecessary, but my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General is anxious to have it made quite clear and, therefore, I readily assented, as I am sure the House will assent, to putting it in the Bill, in express words, that the messengers dealt with in the Bill shall not include telegraph boys and others who are in the service of the Crown.
  Mr. GROVES: I do not know whether the Lord Advocate seriously means to convey to us that, while we are prepared to support this Bill, which will prohibit a child individually from engaging in betting transactions by carrying slips, we are going deliberately to agree that an officer working for the nation shall do that which we say is illegal for a private citizen. If that is so, I think it is a most disgraceful position for the Government to take up.
  Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I would like, strangely enough, to support the hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Groves) on this occasion. I think that here we have struck the question of principle and have a position in which we can stand on a rock. If we are to say that young people are not to engage in this practice, which is recognised by the Bill to be an evil course of procedure, and then we have a representative of the Government saying that in this particular instance we are going to involve the young people who become telegraph messengers, it is a serious position. I will call the recollection of the House to the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking on the question of betting in general, said distinctly that we could proceed to prohibit this great national evil by cutting it out of the post, which, of course,

  1971
  would include the telegraph service, and prohibiting it in the Press. If we can do all these things on the authority of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I submit that we are doing the wrong thing today if we insert this Amendment. We ought to take a stand on principle in supporting this Bill, which I feel is only a very small thing as compared with what we ought to be doing in connection with this great evil.
  Mr. BARR: I wish to emphasise what has fallen from my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour). The Lord Advocate was perhaps assuming that his Amendment would be carried through without discussion and consequently did not enter into a full explanation of its bearings. I wish to call attention to what is the purpose of this Clause. It arose in its history, I think, from a case in Glasgow in which it was found that boys were serving bookmakers in the way of carrying slips. In one particular case the boy was convicted and the bookmaker got free in the courts, and it was felt that this whole question needed to be considered. I agree that this is only a partial consideration of it that we have in this Clause, but what I take to be the effect of what the Lord Advocate said was that the messenger of a telegraph office would be immune if he were delivering slips in this way. The words used in the Clause are:
  "to convey or deliver any information, advice, or money for the purpose of making or procuring the making of any bet or wager."
  It deals with information, and, if I am not mistaken, in the Act of 1874, which was the first time that the Betting Act of 1853 in England became applicable to Scotland, it uses this very word and prohibits in any circumstances any information regarding a bet or wager being conveyed at all. How much more is that binding upon young people, whether they are in the service of the Post Office or otherwise!
  If it were stated in the Amendment that this was done unwittingly, or to that effect, there might be an argument made out for it, but even in that case I conceive that there is no better way of hitting at the betting evil in this country than to make it impossible to have bet-
  1972
  ting odds and information transmitted either by telegraph, by post, or in the newspapers. I conceive that all the Bills we are discussing in this House about dog racing, totalisators, and so on, on which we spend a great deal of time, are of little importance compared with something like this, that would cut at the root of the matter and would be far more effective than anything else we could do. I am rather astonished that the Lord Advocate should, without fully explaining the position, seem to be conveying the impression at least that in some way the Telegraph Office and the Government are putting their shield over those who are doing this thing, which, I hold, is quite illegal. Under the Scottish Act of 1874, which, I am sure, the Lord Advocate knows well, it is expressly forbidden, and to say that you are going to shield the Post Office in doing an illegal thing, while you are going to penalise young children and their parents and others acting in a personal capacity, seems to be a very one-sided thing to do.
  Mr. WESTWOOD: I certainly, despite my responsibility in speaking on behalf of the executive of the education authorities, could not possibly accept this Amendment without a Division. I say that, because when we were discussing the Bill as an Executive, and when I, as an individual, responsible for this particular Bill, was discussing its merits and the possibilities of getting it through, we realised that there might be a difficulty in connection with the telegraph messenger boy, who is really the individual who is sought to be exempted by this Amendment. I recognise that you have the boy from 13 to 15 years of age employed as a telegraph messenger who would possibly be carrying a telegraph message in connection with a bet, but to me that is a betting slip just as much as is a slip for 6d., or Is., or Id. even, that may be carried by an individual child, or the child of a bookmaker, or any other child in connection with betting transactions. To me there is a very vital principle here. What strikes me as rather remarkable is the fact that, having carried through all the correspondence and negotiations with the Secretary of State for Scotland, and, on his advice and recommendation, accepted all the

  1973
  Amendments that were considered necessary so that it would be an uncontroversial Measure, at the very last moment we have an attempt made to remove from the provisions of the Bill the child who is employed by the State, and to allow that child to carry betting slips which we are refusing in the case of private individuals.
  In these circumstances, I do hope we shall not lose the Bill. If I cannot get all I want, I am prepared to take three-fourths in the interest of good administration and to safeguard our children in connection with the betting evil that is so rampant in our midst. But I do hope we shall have a Division on this Amendment, so that we can at least register our protest against the attempt of the Government at the last minute to place State servants in a position from which we are seeking to safeguard the private individual. If I were the only Member calling for a Division on this question I should raise my voice, because to me it is a question of vital importance. While opposing this Amendment, I sincerely hope that we shall get the Bill.
  The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer): I apologise to hon. Members for the fact that this Amendment was not put down earlier, but, on the question of principle, I think that if the matter is looked at, it will be found that the question of principle really does not arise. The object of this Bill is to prevent small boys being employed as messengers between bookmakers and their clients. That sort of practice, we all agree, is exceedingly undesirable, and has a very bad influence upon the boys themselves. That, I think, is the chief point which the promoters of the Bill have in view. The difficulty with regard to the Post Office is this. The Post Office every year has millions of telegrams and thousands of millions of letters to deal with, and the officials of the Post Office who deliver these telegrams and letters, of course, have no knowledge whatsoever as to what is contained in them. They deliver the telegrams and letters in the ordinary course of their business. A postman or a telegraph boy may call at a bookmaker's place of business, it may be with a dozen or half a dozen communications. Some may he and some may not be betting
  1974
  transactions. How can the boy know or how can the Post Office know? Hon. Members will see that it is quite impossible for the Post Office to distinguish between letters and telegrams which contain betting transactions and those which do not.
  I would further point out that the effect of this Bill, if carried without the Amendment, would not, of course, be to prevent the Post Office from transmitting these betting messages, because there would still be nothing illegal in a bookmaker receiving a telegram from a messenger boy over 16 years of age, and when you say in an Act of Parliament that a messenger boy who is over 16 years of age may deliver a telegram which a messenger boy under 16 may not deliver, surely you are trying to do something which is altogether absurd. That is why we desire to exempt the Post Office, which, in carrying out its enormous business of transmitting messages of all sorts, is not at all in the same category as people specially employed for the purpose of carrying these messages.
  Mr. GROVES: The Noble Lord argued on the asumption that the employés do not know what is contained in the letters. I think that is a very legitimate answer, but supposing they did know, would they be justified in refusing to deliver or accept a message for a bookmaker's establishment, and if they did not know, would they be exempt from any legal punishment under the Bill?
  Mr. WESTWOOD: That is the very point I wish to put. Clause 1 says:—
  "Any person who causes or procures or attempts to cause or procure any young person to convey or deliver any slip."
  Can we have an assurance that the officials who receive a telegram do not know it is about a betting transaction, or the officials who receive a telegram and put it into an envelope and give it to a person between 13 and 15 years of age do not know it?
  Viscount WOLMER: Certainly in a great many cases—I do not say in every case—it is perfectly impossible to tell whether a telegram is a betting transaction or not. An enormous number of these betting telegrams go by code. The Post Office is in a totally different cate-

  1975
  gory, and I therefore hope that hon. Members will not think that any question of principle is involved.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I think the difficulty which the Noble Lord has pointed out is a real one, but it also applies to the District Messenger Company. They are given a letter, and do not know what is in it. Most of the boys who come to me with messages look to me a good deal under 16. Are they to be liable in the same way?
  Mr. ELLIS: They do not see the contents of the letter.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Of course not, but I think under this Bill the District Messenger Company in Scotland—for I presume it operates in Scotland—will come under the pains and penalties of this Bill for using a messenger under 16 to deliver a betting message. [An HON. MEMBER.: "Knowingly."] They have got to prove that they do not know it. A man carrying on business as a bookmaker in Glasgow pays his tax to the Exchequer and sends out thousands of messages to his clients. It would be a very hard task in law to prove that they did not know what those messages contained.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member is speaking against Clause 1 rather than on this Amendment.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not want to enlarge on that, but the Post Office is trying to prove that its position is different from that of a private company such as the District Messenger Company. Suppose the postal authorities had not suddenly woke up to the fact that this Bill would affect their business in the delivery of telegrams, and that it had gone through. They would have had to do one of two things, either to engage messenger boys over 16—and as I hope to see all children in a few years remaining at school until 16, that would not be a bad thing—or else they would have had to frame regulations to get over the difficulty. I admit that a good many telegrams are in code, and that the Post Office has no means of knowing that they are betting telegrams, or that a man who has ordered 20 salmon means that he is putting £20 on a horse; but many of
  1976
  them are not in code, and the Post Office could issue regulations that messages known to be betting messages and known to be from bookmakers, should not be delivered by boys under 16. Is there any administrative difficulty there? If we accept this Amendment, it will put the Post Office in a separate position and will make the whole law in connection with betting more farcical than it is at present. The Betting Laws of this country are full of anomalies and injustices and the whole situation is perfectly absurd.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I would remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that we are on the Report stage of this Bill.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not want to make a Third Reading speech. I am only pointing out the absurd position in which the Amendment puts us. I do not see any reason why this Bill should not apply to the Post Office as to any other person in Scotland, or why suitable rules should not he framed to that end.
  Commander WILLIAMS: It does not seem to me that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has had quite such a complete conversion as he might think he has had from his previous political party. He rather complained that this Amendment would give a State concern a privilege as against a private concern. I rather doubt if that is an argument which would find extreme favour with his Front Bench, or with the more theoretical and strait-laced section of his party.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not want the State to have a monopoly of vice, but a monopoly of virtue.
  Commander WILLIAMS: I agree, and I would like to see all of us have a monopoly of virtue, but I was not dealing with it from that point of view. It has very often been held in this House and in other places that the service of the Post Office in this country is far better and more useful than the service in other countries, because in a high percentage of cases the Post Office official is above giving away any secret which he may find out in the course of his duty. This Bill would prevent bookmakers extending their business through the Post Office. It would also take certain young persons out of the

  1977
  business. When you come to the Post Office, however, it is a matter of public delivery. The nature of many of the telegrams are not known, and the actual messages are of a different sort from those which are sent from bookmakers by ordinary boy messengers.
  I think that the State in this instance is particularly justified in wishing to exclude their messengers, when you consider the enormous value it is to the community that the Post Office should retain the full confidence of the country that it does not know anything that it is not absolutely bound to know in the conduct of its business. That is to say, it knows nothing of what is inside the letters and telegrams which it is handling. We placed them in that position, and no Civil Service has earned it better. I will give an illustration to explain my point. It would be agreed by any party represented in this House that it would be unfair and wrong for a Postal official to cause any delay to a communication passing through his hands because he was of an opposite political party to that of the addressee of the letter. He is supposed to deliver it automatically and officially. In the same way, with the delivery of a telegram, it is the messenger's duty just to take a piece of paper, deliver it, and ask if there be an answer. For that reason I cannot think that there is anything in the argument of the hon. Gentleman who spoke against this Amendment, whose name I believe is on the back of the Bill. Many of the messengers are quite disinterested in the messages that they are delivering.
  I do not think that those who are opposing this Amendment have a case of any value, or that they have made out a case for troubling the House on a Friday afternoon with a Division on this matter. Their case is based entirely on a sort of supposition that some messenger at some time or other might see a betting slip and be offended. In the interests of the Bill, the Government are justified in inserting this Amendment, because, otherwise, there would be confusion throughout the Post Office. They would have to separate betting telegrams, betting notices, betting slips and everything connected with betting, and have a separate form of delivery. If any of these things were touched by some young messenger or young clerk, the law would be broken,
  1978
  and it would enormously increase the difficulties of the Post Office. On consideration, I am perfectly certain that my hon. Friend opposite must realise that this Amendment is essential if the Bill is to be really valuable for that part of the country which I do not represent.
  Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I think one ought to have a. little more information from the Lord Advocate, although I am not at all certain that I see a very strong case in the point of view that has been put. The first Clause of the Bill provides penalties against people who procure young persons to convey betting information and messages. Is the Postmaster-General anticipating that there would be prosecutions by ethical and moral societies against the Post Office? From whom does he think those prosecutions will emanate? He makes out a perfectly plain case when talking about telegraph boys who are conveying sealed telegrams from the Post Office to the recipients not knowing anything of the contents of the telegrams, but is it also the idea of the Post Office that they want to exclude the possibility of proceedings being taken against a person who is sending messages to the Post Office from a racecourse or any racing establishment? I think officers of the Post Office are used to convey open messages from racecourses or betting establishments to the nearest Post Office or trunk telephone office in order that they may be forwarded by the Post Office. Neither the Lord Advocate nor the Assistant Postmaster-General has met that point. They have confined their observations to the employment of a telegraph messenger to convey a sealed telegram from the Post Office to the recipient, but there is also the converse use of officers of the Post Office, because I understand that the Post Office do provide staffs of messengers at racecourses, and very likely they may also be sent to racing establishments.
  I well remember a ease at the Somerset Assizes, I think it was some 20 years ago, of a criminal prosecution for fraud against people who were dabbling in horse-racing and gambling and had made use, not of telegraph messengers, but of a young person employed by a sub-postmaster in village post office just outside the town where the betting business was carried on. It is cases like that which make me see something in the moral and

  1979
  legal aspect of the case which was put by my hon. Friend, although it does not seem to me that his point has yet been met. Why do we need the Amendment at all? It seems to me to be unnecessary, and I think the Post Office must meet the point of the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr) as to why it is necessary to introduce words of this kind, although no such form of words is included in Section 3 of the Act which applied the 1853 Act to Scotland and was passed on the 8th June, 1874.
  Viscount WOLMER: With the leave of the House, I will reply to the point raised by the hon. Member. I would not like to give the House the impression that a messenger boy never knows that he is carrying a betting message. There may be a few occasions when he knows that it is a betting message, and when the person who has sent him knows that he is employing a boy under 16 for that purpose, but my point is that these cases are an infinitesimal fraction of the total business run by the Post Office, and that you must have an Amendment on these lines unless you are to reduce the work of the Post Office to chaos. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) seemed to think we could get over this difficulty by regulations. We could not possibly get over it unless we established a postal censorship, unless every telegram and every letter were censored, and the House must realise what an enormous proposition that would be. With all deference, I submit that the ordinary everyday work of the Post Office is totally outside the objects the promoters of this Bill have in view, and, therefore, the sensible and reasonable course is to exclude the officers of the Post Office from the operations of the Bill.
  Mr. BARR: Is it not true that in several countries transmission by the Post Office of betting communications is expressly prohibited?
  Viscount WOLMER: I am afraid I must ask for notice of that question.
  Mr. AMMON: I am afraid I must press the Noble Lord, who has not answered the point which my hon. Friend has put up, and which is of importance to the Amendment. As I read the Amendment
  1980
  it has reference only to young persons. The point of my hon. Friend is that under the Bill the person to be prosecuted is not the messenger who carries the message but the person who causes or procures or attempts to cause a young person to carry the message.
  Viscount WOLMER: Imagine the case of a man who sends a betting telegram. He hands the telegram into the Post Office in code, and that telegram is sent off to its destination and is then carried by a messenger boy under 16 to the bookmaker's place. Does the hon. Member say that that man is not procuring a boy to carry a betting telegram, and yet when he is sending the telegram how is he to know the age of the boy?
  Mr. GROVES: Procuring implies knowledge.
  Mr. AMMON: If the Noble Lord had waited he would have seen that that was a point I was about to bring out. It seems to me that it would not concern that individual at all, but would concern the Post Office, and the Post Office as such, from what I know, and I do know a little about it, cannot be proceeded against except by petition, and I cannot imagine any petition being granted to allow anyone to proceed against the Crown in this manner. That is the point upon which I desire satisfaction from the Noble Lord. I know something of this matter, because, further back than I care to remember, I was a telegraph messenger, and I know that those boys have no knowledge, or should have no knowledge, of the contents of telegrams; they cannot be held to know what is in them. The whole point seems to me to be that it is unnecessary to insert the Amendment because the operative Clause of the Bill aims at other persons. The person who sends the telegram does not send it knowing that a messenger boy under a certain age is going to deliver it, and, therefore, I should think he could not be held to be procuring that boy. The action must lie against the Post Office, and, as far as I can see, it would be a very difficult job to succeed in any action against the Post Office.
  Sir WILLIAM ALEXANDER: I would like to give my views to the House very shortly. The real object of this Bill is to prevent the employment as agents of

  1981
  young persons running for street bookmakers who in the majority of cases are betting illegally. We have not yet in this country had prohibition against betting on certain lines, neither have we had prohibition against drink. We believe that drinking is bad for the youth of the country, and we also believe that the encouragement of young children to carry slips for bookmakers cannot be good for their morals. The object of this Bill is to cover the whole field, and it has been introduced in order to deal with the growing evil which has been brought to the noitce of the public by education authorities. I have to admit quite frankly that sometimes I have a bet, and I use the Post Office for betting purposes,
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  but I am quite within my legal rights, and so long as the messengers of the Post Office are carrying messages which are in code and of which they have no knowledge whatever, I cannot see that any harm can be done by passing this Amendment. I therefore suggest that we should accept the Amendment, and get through with this Bill, which I am sure will do a considerable amount of good in the way of protecting the youth of Scotland.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 103; Noes, 32.

  Division No. 177.]

  AYES.

  [2.0 p.m.

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

  Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

  Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

  Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

  Paling, W.

  Ammon, Charles George

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Fremantle, Lieut-Colonel Francis E.

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Gllmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertlliery)

  Gosling, Harry

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Barnes, A.

  Griffith, F. Kingsley

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Rose, Frank H.

  Berry, Sir George

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Sandeman, N. Stewart

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Harris, Percy A.

  Scurr, John

  Bondfield, Margaret

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon, Vernon

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Hayes, John Henry

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

  Hilton, Cecil

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Campbell, E. T.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Hudson, Capt. A. U.M. (Hackney, N.)

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Templeton, W. P.

  Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.)

  Kennedy, T.

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  King, Commodore Henry Douglas

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Lansbury, George

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Lawrence, Susan

  Varley, Frank B.

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Loder, J. de V.

  Vlant, S. P.

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Lougher, Lewis

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

  Luce, Maj.-Gen, Sir Richard Harman

  Watts, Sir Thomas

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

  Wells, S. R.

  Cope, Major Sir William

  Mucdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Couper, J. B.

  MacIntyre, I.

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Dixey, A. C.

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Winby, Colonel L. P.

  Edge, Sir William

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Edwards C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. S. M.

  Mr. Penny and Major The Marquess of Titchfield.

  Ellis, R. G.

  Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R. (Ayr)

  Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  NOES.

  Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Baker, Walter

  Kelly, W. T.

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Barr, J.

  Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Batey, Joseph

  Lee, F.

  Snell, Harry

  Broad, F. A.

  Lowth, T.

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Bromley, J.

  March, S.

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Dunnico, H.

  Montague, Frederick

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N)

  Wright, W.

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson end Colne)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Oliver, George Harold

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  Mr. Westwood and Mr. Groves.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I should like to say that the Amendment which has just been inserted in the Bill has a significance

  1983
  pointing to the real necessity of this House gripping the question from the standpoint of thorough-going principles. The Amendment makes it permissible for these messages to be carried by certain boys because they have a uniform and formally re-present the Government which backs this betting evil and taxes it. That is the issue that has to be faced. It is the duty of the Opposition in particular to challenge it in a thorough-going fashion, and it is the duty of the Front Bench not only to speak against these things but to act against them in the Lobbies.
  Mr. GROVES: I rise for a few minutes mainly because, when we challenged the last Division, it was put to me that our opposition in this matter would contribute towards the view that the Government, through the Post Office, should establish a sort of censorship of telegrams and letters. I put a question to the Assistant Postmaster-General, which, of course, he did not answer, and I want to put it to him again. The Bill to which we are now, I hope, going to give a Third Reading, makes it illegal for any person to procure or cause to be procured certain young people to be used in connection with the transmission of betting slips. The words are:
  "Any person who causes or procures or attempts to cause or procure any young person to convey or deliver any slip, note or message, verbal or written, which relates to any bet or wager, or to convey or deliver any information, advice or money for the purpose of making or procuring the making of any bet or wager."
  I respectfully submit that, while these are matters for lawyers to wrangle over later on in the Courts, we mean here that a man who procures is a man who wilfully, with deliberate knowledge and forethought, uses a young person in a direction that is known to convey a message, which message is connected with betting; and that person alone would come within the ban of this Bill. I would ask the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he will reply to the question that I put to him a quarter of an hour ago. He stated that the tens of millions of letters and tens of thousands of telegrams in question would be in code. While I am not catechising him, because, no doubt, he is speaking without detailed information, I would point out that he said, in reply to
  1984
  my hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon), who knows a good deal about the Post Office, that they are not all in code.
  Viscount WOLMER indicated dissent.
  Mr. GROVES: He said that there was a certain proportion in the case of which the Post Office people did know that the message on the telegram or on the piece of paper in the envelope was connected with betting. Are we to take it that in this country the Post Office deliberately, and with knowledge, enters into betting transactions? Yes; we do not deny it. The hon. and gallant Member who is in charge of this Bill not only says that it is legal, but says that he himself uses the services of the Post Office for this purpose. I object to this imposition of a penalty upon private people, namely, street bookmakers, only because they are poor and cannot stand up for themselves, if they engage a young person under the age of 16 to do something which the State itself is prepared to do under State supervision and authority, and which involves the use of State servants. More hypocrisy I never met with, and, therefore, I say that the 32 who, at my instigation, voted against this Amendment, and are proud to have done so, will know, when they read this discussion, that they did not go into the Lobby to vote for State censorship of these letters and telegrams.
  I feel seriously and keenly on this question, and I was the first, I think, to rise in my place and call attention to this apparently innocuous Amendment. I want to protest against this Bill, as I had to protest against the apparently innocuous Bill which preceded it. I protest against this Bill because it gives to the nation the right to do what we object to private individuals doing. We are going to make illegal for the individual that which we, as a nation, accept as legal. That in itself is not only contradictory and farcical, but, in my opinion, very wrong, and, while I am prepared to vote for the Third Reading of this Bill, I should have been more pleased to vote for it as it was this morning, without the Amendment which has just been inserted. Whoever is employed by the Post Office, when they read this discussion—and I shall take care that it is read by those who are in my district—will see that

  1985
  they are being used, as State servants, in order to do what the nation objects to individuals in their private capacity doing, and they will then realise to what lengths certain Government Departments are prepared to go. The effect of the Amendment that we have just accepted is that, if we are going to take any action against the person who procures, that action, in the case of the Post Office, will not be taken against an ordinary postmaster or sub-postmaster who engages a person to carry out the work of the Post Office. Our pleasure in taking any such action would be that the person who procured would be the Postmaster-General or his Assistant. You are the people who are ultimately responsible for everything that takes place in the Post Office, and, therefore, legally, you would be the people who procured—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am not the Postmaster-General
  Mr. GROVES: I apologise. What I wished to say was that it is a great pleasure to realise that we should not take a poor, humble, private individual engaged, say, in a local post office at West Ham, in which office a youngster under the age of 16 had been engaged for this purpose, but we should have the pleasure of indicting the Postmaster-General, because, under the Constitution and the law of this land, he is responsible for all the acts committed in that Department, with the exception, perhaps, of the action of a driver of a Post Office van. When we come to discuss these matters of legality or illegality, we shall find to what lengths or depths they will go. I realise with pride that 32 Members of this House have protested against the Post Office of this country, a State Department, engaging in transactions connected with betting. We feel that the nation itself should set the lead, not in the wrong direction, but in the right direction, and should not do collectively that which it objects to the private individual doing separately.
  Mr. ELLIS: With regard to the hon. Member's allegation that we are persecuting the poor street bookmaker and not bothering about anyone else, if he had paid the least attention to the subject he would know very well, from the many convictions and fines, that street bookmaking is an organised profession covered by a good many very well-off
  1986
  people, and that the men who are prosecuted for it and fined always have their fines paid by the rich people behind them. I am very glad that this Bill is going to pass, because it is one of the most evil forms of betting that we have. On the other point of the Post Office, if you believe that present forms of betting which are illegal ought to be abolished, you ought not to do it by a little Bill of this sort as a side issue. You ought to attack the whole question root and branch, and not, just because the Government wish to protect their innocent servants, make use of the opportunity to bring up the whole question of betting here and now.
  Mr. WESTWOOD: I am afraid the hon. Member has not realised exactly how the Bill came in. He suggests that we ought not to go for the Government for bringing in a Bill for the purpose of dealing with what is a recognised evil. The Government did not bring the Bill in.
  Mr. ELLIS: I did not suggest that they did. I was arguing that, the Bill having been brought in from outside, it was not fair to attack the Government for protecting their own servants in case they might be charged with doing something which to-day is perfectly legal, and they are quite right in bringing forward this Amendment to protect these persons, because they ought not to be charged with doing an illegal thing by a side issue.
  Mr. WESTWOOD: The hon. Member has come in for the Third Reading and was not present when the Bill was being considered on Report. We are not discussing an Amendment now, but the Third Reading.
  Mr. ELLIS: It is in relation to the Amendment surely.
  Mr. WESTWOOD: No one is more pleased than I am at the progress that the Bill has made. For four months last Session it was kept on the Order Paper. I have thanked the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Glasgow (Sir W. Alexander) on behalf of the executive of the education authorities for having chosen the Bill, having been successful in the ballot. My complaint is that, after all these months, at the very last moment, this Amendment should have been sorung upon us. I am one of

  1987
  the 32 who protested against the Amendment, but I have now to accept the decision of the House, and I am going to vote for the Third Reading, because I believe the Bill will do some good. I know it does not deal with all the evils of betting. I wish we could discuss freely all the evils of betting. I believe betting is almost, if not quite, as bad an evil as drink. I believe it is undermining the well-being and the stability of our people. But the education authorities of Scotland are not responsible for suggesting Bills dealing with the evil. All we were responsible for was our work in connection with the administration of the Act. As administrators, we realised that boys of five, six, seven and eight years of age were being used in connection with betting transactions. We knew there was a weakness in the 1906 Street Betting Act.
  This Bill is not so much to deal with problems attached to betting and with the evil of betting as with the strengthening of the Street Betting Act. A weakness has been discovered in dealing with those who were merely conveying messages instead of money, and carrying slips instead of actually taking part in the betting transactions. We shall be strengthening the Act in its relationship to Scotland—I hope England will follow suit—by doing something to remove the temptations that stand in the way of many of these children who have been used for this purpose. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Glasgow has pointed out that even in his own house he has discovered milk boys and butcher boys acting as betting messengers. Many others have had the same experience, and we know it is an evil. While I would rather have seen the Bill without the Amendment which is now part of it, not being able to get the whole Bill as it was originally, I am prepared to take the three-fourths advantage which will come our way in helping us to deal with the evil, and I hope that we are going to get the Third Reading.
  Viscount WOLMER: May I say a word in reply to what fell from the hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Groves). In the first place, may I correct a misapprehension. I think he misunderstood something which I said in regard to the traffic carried by the Post Office. I said
  1988
  that the Post Office had millions of telegrams and thousands of millions of letters. That, of course, is perfectly accurate. I said that in a fractional amount of this vast traffic the messenger boys themselves might know they were carrying betting messages. I said a large proportion of the betting telegrams are in code, but I do not wish the hon. Member to be under any misapprehension. There is a very heavy betting traffic which is not in code.
  Mr. GROVES: You said that it was infinitesimal.
  Viscount WOLMER: No; what was infinitesimal was the number of messenger boys who knew that they were carrying betting telegrams—not the operators who work the telegraph instruments. Of course, the operators are outside the scope of the Bill altogether, being over the age of 18. I do not propose to enter into the legal argument on the word "procure." I have no doubt that there is a good deal in what the hon. Member says, but we are advised that in certain cases it might be possible to prove that individuals were procuring messenger boys within the meaning of the term, and, on the general ground that the object of the Bill was not to interfere in the ordinary everyday work of the Post Office, my right hon. Friend asked that an Amendment should he put down which would take the Post Office out of it altogether. The hon. Member for Stratford waxed very eloquent on the anomaly of the Post Office carrying betting transactions and not allowing other people to do so. He has been aware of the fact, as I suppose every other Member of the House has, throughout the whole of his life. Ever since the telegraph was invented, it has been used for betting purposes. If Parliament ever decided that that traffic ought to cease altogether, then, of course, the Post Office would have to carry out the decision. We should lied it an extremely difficult thing to do. At the present moment, the Post Office tries to prevent the passage through the post of indecent matter. We find very great difficulty in enforcing that, but it would be infinitely more difficult to prevent the transit of betting messages, for the simple reason that you could send a betting message by code and in regard to the other matter to which I refer yon could not. If hon. Members think of this position, they will

  1989
  see that the difficulties with which the Post Office is faced in this connection are really very great indeed.
  We have this vast amount of business to handle. There is no sort of censorship in the Post Office. We have to treat every message that we receive on a strict basis of equality and deliver it to its destination as soon as we possibly can, and the postal servants who are carrying out those duties must be given a fair chance in the matter. I therefore hope that hon. Members opposite will not think that the Post Office is asking for privileges or unfair treatment. We have a very difficult task in regard to this question, and hon. Members like the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) who desire and hope by legislation to put an end to the betting evil altogether will really have to address their minds as to the way in which the difficulties which exist can he overcome. These difficulties are not what may be described as departmental difficulties, and anyone who wants to deal with this matter by legislation on broad lines so that it will apply not only to the Post Office, but to everybody, not only in Scotland, but in England, I can assure him, will have very great difficulties to overcome. I hope very much that hon. Members will study the question from that point of view.
  Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: May I suggest to the Noble Lord that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is well qualified to advise him whenever he is ready for any advice.
  Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: I welcome this Bill, and I congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Central Glasgow (Sir W. Alexander) upon having succeeded in carrying it through the House. My only regret is that its provisions are not made to extend to this country, and that it should be limited to Scotland. Of all the pernicious forms of betting, I suppose that street betting is the worst. It has only one redeeming quality, and that is that for the main part it is cash betting, and the evil of credit betting does not come in. Anybody who has troubled to read the evidence before the Betting Commission of which I was Chairman will remember that nearly all the streets in our big towns are perambulated by betting men openly defying the law by carrying on betting in the streets. When I hear hon. Members opposite talking,
  1990
  as they continually do here, of the evils of betting and desiring prohibition without lifting a little finger to obtain the prohibition of betting it makes me rather disappointed with this House of Commons. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) has uttered fine sentiments on the evils of betting, but looking back on the whole of his Parliamentary career I cannot recall that he has done anything to prevent this evil of betting or to curtail it in any way or shape.
  Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I have tried to do so.
  Sir H. CAUTLEY: What is the use of coming here and having these sentiments when the hon. Member does nothing. The remedy that I suggested, which was to recognise the evil of betting and to curtail it, was opposed by his party before the Committee on which I presided.
  Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: May I correct the hon. and learned Member. I do not belong to the Labour party. My position on this question is on a different basis from that of that party.
  Sir H. CAUTLEY: I am sorry. That was rather a misrepresentation on my part. But the party with whom the hon. Members acts have opposed the remedy that I suggested, which was to deal with the evils of betting rather on the lines on which we deal with the evils of drink, namely, to recognise betting but to limit its operations, limit the facilities for it, control it, and tax it. That was my remedy. That was opposed constantly and is opposed now by Members of the party with whom the hon. Member acted and still acts. He knows perfectly well, because he has studied this question, and the evidence from all parts of England—Scotland and Wales confirm it—that to prohibit betting is, among the Anglo-Saxon race an impossibility.
  Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: No.
  Sir H. CAUTLEY: He knows, if he has read this evidence, and if he reads the newspapers, that, in spite of the continual prosecutions to try and prevent street betting before our magisterial courts, street betting continues now in as large a volume as ever it did. What is the remedy? When we have a law to stop one portion of betting and we can-

  1991
  not enforce it, what is the good of getting up here and saying: "Oh, you ought to take steps to prohibit betting altogether." Hon. Members should bring themselves down to the existing state of affairs. I welcome this Bill as a. small Measure that will tend to make it more difficult to carry on street betting. Street betting is pernicious for this reason, not because men bet—I do not object to poeple betting—
  Mr. W. THORNE: On a point of Order. I would like to ask whether the hon. and learned Member is entitled to discuss the general question of betting from all its aspects on the Third Reading of this Bill?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member should confine himself to what is in this Bill.
  Sir H. CAUTLEY: The hon. Member apparently has not read the Bill.
  Mr. THORNE: Oh, yes, I have. It relates to juvenile betting.
  Sir H. CAUTLEY: No, that is just what, it is not. It provides that juveniles shall not carry betting slips to street bookmakers. It. is the street bookmaking evil with which I was dealing; that bookmaking is a great evil. At the beginning of my speech, I said that street betting had only one redeeming quality in that it was for cash and did not include credit betting. I was pointing out the great evil of street betting, because we had bookmakers perambulating our streets with touts and runners inducing all kinds of people to bet, and I was going on to point out that this Measure does one good thing. It does stop the employment of young people under 16 from carrying betting slips to these bookmakers to facilitate this pernicious form of offence. Hon. Members opposite must agree that that is a very good object. It will have the effect of making it more and more difficult for the street bookmaker to carry on his business. Otherwise, I do not think that it is going to put many penalties on to the street bookmaker, because, as I understand it, the street bookmaker, although he is liable, if he receives the slips from young persons, to a penalty under this Act, will have to have the same evidence brought
  1992
  against him as is required for the purpose of obtaining a conviction against him for carrying on a business in the street under the Street Betting Act. There is an additional offence that the slips might be taken to the home of the bookmaker or given to him somewhere else than in the street and in circumstances which were not those of betting in the street. The object of this Bill, in that it puts an obstacle in the way of one class of betting, is wholly desirable. With respect to the Post Office, had it not been for the Amendment which has been moved by the Assistant Postmaster-General, it seems to me that the whole business of the Post Office might have been held up. One hon. Member referred to the meaning of the word "procures," and I think he was right, but the Bill says not merely "procures" but "causes or procures," and "causes" is something different from "procures" The Bill says:
  "Any person who causes or procures…any young person to convey or deliver any slip, note or message, verbal or written, which relater to any bet or wager."
  is to be liable to a penalty. That would apply to any bet whether a bet made in the street illegally, or a bet made legally, a bet made in an office by letter, which is perfectly legal. Any person would be liable for carrying a letter or a note relating to any bet, whether legal or illegal. That would have put the Post Office in a position which would have made it impossible for them to carry on their business. I think the Bill is wholly desirable and wholly advantageous and I am glad that it has reached its Third reading.
  Mr. BARR: In supporting the Third Reading of the Bill, I wish heartily to congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Central Glasgow (Sir W. Alexander) on the fact that his Bill is about to receive its Third Reading. One hon. Member opposite twitted us that this was a very little Bill. He asked why we troubled about matters so small and why we did not go to the root of the matter. When one brings in a small Bill there are those who object to it and say that if it had been something bigger they would have given it their wholehearted support, whereas when one brings in a large Bill that does go to the root of the matter, they say that it

  1993
  is all very fine and they admire it but that it is altogether impracticable and impossible. There is no inconsistency in our advocating wherever we can a small Measure and accepting a small Measure, or advocating wherever possible a large Measure. I associate myself with the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) in this respect. It was said by the hon. Member opposite, "You have never lifted a little finger to get at the roots and to destroy the betting evil." I can say for my hon. Friend and for many others on this side that we constantly oppose the whole evil of betting and are willing to take part in any legislation that will bring it to an end; but we are content also to take a small Measure like this and to accept the utmost that we can possibly get.
  The hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) said that whatever the hon. Member for Dundee might do, we had not shown an earnestness in resisting this evil. I would point out that in connection with the Bill to put an end to the betting evil in connection with dog racing, there was not a single Member of this party who did not go into the lobby in favour of it, and I might say the same about the Totalisator Bill, of which the hon. Member for East Grinstead is a defender.
  Sir H. CAUTLEY: Is the hon. Member correct? Was there a Division on the Dogs Bill? My recollection is that there was no Division on that Bill.
  Mr. PALING: That shows that we all supported it.
  Mr. BARR: It may be that I have confused the two Bills, and that I mean the Totalisator Bill. For my own information I went through the Division list. I believe I am in error and that it was the Totalisator Bill to which I should have referred. The hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead wishes to tax betting and to control it. I will not say more on that point, except that he has not helped us in regard to the betting trouble by the proposal to tax betting. In regard to the Post Office, the hon. and learned Member put before us a spectacle of the Post Office being held up and unable to get through their business. I should not object to the Post Office being held up in
  1994
  this matter, or to any difficulty being created if it would lead to progressive legislation on the subject. The Assistant Postmaster-General is not in the House, but I should like to put to him this point, that there are not a few countries, some parts of Australia and other countries, where they prohibit the Post Office from handling betting letters, circulars or telegrams. In some eases they condescend to the individual names of those who are well known to be prominent bookmakers. If other countries can make an attempt to destroy the evil of betting or to restrict it, why cannot our Post Office do the same?
  The Noble Lord the Assistant Postmaster-General said that a great many betting telegrams were in code. That showed that he knew they were betting telegrams; that he knew the betting code and that consequently it would be easy comparatively to distinguish. I do not think that we have been acting amiss in raising this question on the lines of resistance to the Government Amendment. I agree with what was said by an hon. Member opposite that you cannot settle this question by a side issue and that it will he necessary to come forward and take a more comprehensive view of legislation on the subject. Nevertheless, our proposal would have been a beginning, and I do not regret that some of us today made a stand on it. I am confident that in Scotland there will be great satisfaction that this Measure has received a Third Reading. I saw the Secretary of the Scottish National Anti-Gambling Association the other day and he seemed to be more concerned about this little Measure than about the larger Measures dealing with betting that are before the House or Committee. I believe it will be a matter of great satisfaction in Scotland not only that this Measure has passed the House of Commons, but that to-day we have raised the question of the connection of the Post Office with this evil; a connection which cannot rest where it is, but which must be met by further and more comprehensive legislation.
  Mr. MARCH: I am very pleased that the Bill has got so far and am only sorry that it is not to apply to England. It is brought forward in order to discourage parents sending their children with betting slips to the street bookmaker, Those

  1995
  parents will be able to say that the Government are protecting children when they are using them for their own purposes but if they happen to be in the Post Office as telegraph messengers it will be quite legal for them to carry these betting slips. They will be able to say that they are not to be allowed to use their own boys to take messages for them. It will set people thinking as to the way the Government are acting in this matter of betting. The Government want to legalise their own misdeeds: they are satisfied that betting is right if done in the proper way. The hon. Member who is promoting the Bill admitted quite openly that he bets occasionally. He can send his bets through the Post Office. If working men and working women could send their betting messages through the Post Office it would be quite legal, but many of these people are unable to write a note properly, much less address an envelope to a bookmaker. It is quite possible that the bookmaker will find ways and means of getting behind these regulations if he wants to. If the Government wants to be fair they should prohibit betting for everybody and not legalise it for those who have the facilities for transacting betting operations. A great number of children are engaged as messengers in other offices besides the Post Office, and it seems to me that they run the risk of being convicted for doing exactly what Post Office boy messengers are allowed to do. It is one-sided legislation, and I do not agree with it. We should treat other people as we would like to be treated ourselves.
  Sir PATRICK FORD: I should just like to reply to one point raised by the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. March). It is quite obvious that the object of the Bill is to keep children of a tender age from coming into contact with betting, which is dangerous to those who have not reached the years of discretion. The fact that any messenger boy may carry a telegram does not subject him to any danger because I have never yet been aware that he knows the contents of the message he carries. That puts the matter in a nutshell.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

BLASPHEMY LAWS (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. LANSBURY: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill has been on the Order Paper for a long time, but this is the first occasion on which we have had an opportunity of saying a word on its behalf. I should like to say at the outset that only those names which appear on the back of the Bill are responsible for its introduction; the Opposition, officially, is not responsible for it. At this time of day one would have thought that the old-fashioned laws of 200 and 300 years ago would have ceased to apply, but they do operate on occasions against very poor men. I have never yet read of a prosecution for blasphemy against anyone who could write in what is described as an intellectual manner; all the prosecutions have been against men of humble origin and who have not been trained in the Universities or any of the public schools. These old laws, according to the late Lord Halsbury, if they were operating to-day would mean that at least two-thirds, if not three-fourths, of the Anglican clergy would be liable to prosecution for blasphemy. We had a long discussion on the Prayer Book some time ago and again and again we were informed, and given evidence by the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General, that certain clergymen of the Church of England were carrying out their duties outside the Ordinances of the Prayer Book. According to the Blasphemy Laws any person who does that, or:
"by writing, printing, teaching or speaking, does anything to deny the Christian religion to be true or the Holy Scriptures to be of Divine origin and authority, shall upon conviction or indictment or information be adjudged incapable of holding any office."
And after a second conviction is to suffer other penalties and be imprisoned for three years. If that was literally carried out the present Bishop of Birmingham would be imprisoned for three years. There is no question at all that he denies, has publicly denied, considerable portions of the first four chapters of the

1997
Bible which deal with the origin of man. If he had lived a couple of hundred years ago, he would probably have been prosecuted as a heretic and imprisoned. The point I want to call special attention to is this. Under the Act of Elizabeth, according to the late Lord Halsbury, anyone is by Statute guilty of a misdemeanour who in any place:
"speaks anything derogatory of the Book of Common Prayer or of anything containing therein or uses any other form of prayer."
That is to say that if a clergyman uses any form of prayer that is not within the four corners of the authorised Book of Common Prayer he is guilty of a misdemeanour.
"Any priest or minister of the Church who uses Common Prayers or administers the Sacraments is by Statute guilty of a misdemeanour if he refuses to do so in the order set out in the Book of Common Prayer."
The punishment for the third offence is deprivation of all his spiritual privileges and so on, and imprisonment for life. So I am right in saying that if these precious laws were carried out you would have to build a few more prisons in order to imprison the defaulting clergy of the Church of England. The law needs only to be stated to show how utterly ridiculous it is. That such a law should be on the Statute Book is quite absurd. The Bill is simple and, like all the Bills that we have had before us this afternoon, it is very short. It merely provides that:
"After the passing of this Act, no criminal proceedings shall be instituted in any court against any person for schism, heresy, blasphemy, blasphemous libel or atheism."
If the Lord Advocate is to deal with this matter I would put it to him that laws are brought into contempt when the authorities are not able or not inclined to administer them equally and fairly as between individual men and women. This law has never been applied in that way, at least never in modern times. The Lord Advocate cannot give us a case where anyone who has written a book to prove that the Christian religion was a fable and has done so in what is called an intellectual or literary manner, has been prosecuted. This is an offence against the Church of England:
1998
"Any one who otters or publishes seditious words in derogation of the established religion is by common law guilty of a misdemeanour and is punishable by fine and imprisonment."
Moreover, anyone is guilty of a misdemeanour
"who depraves, despises or contemns the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper by any contemptuous words or otherwise."
The punishment for this offence is imprisonment and fine "at the King's pleasure." There is no question about that; that is for blasphemy. I again tell the Lord Advocate that there has never been in my recollection, certainly not in modern times, a prosecution of anyone who has attacked the Christian religion in literary language and has published books at a price which certain well-to-do people can afford to pay. I contend that if there is such a thing as blasphemy, then blasphemy is blasphemy, whether it is said in what is called a vulgar manner or is said in an intellectual manner.
It is not that I agree with those who criticise the present Bishop of Birmingham, but I say without hesitation that if the law of blasphemy, as read out, were strictly applied to-day, the Bishop of Birmingham would be put on his trial. The people who are put on trial are those who use words called vulgar and indecent language, at the street corners, or who write pamphlets and leaflets which, we are told, offend certain people. I should have thought that if you wanted a law in order to protect religion, the people to protect religion against are not those who are heard at the corner of the street by a few, but those who write learned books on the subject—men like Mr. J. M. Robertson and the people who write the literature of the Rationalist Society. They write more destructive criticisms and do more to bring the Christian religion into contempt than all the people who speak at street corners and those whom I have mentioned as having been prosecuted. The Government would not dare to prosecute the people who write the books that are published either by the Ethical Society or by the Rationalist Society or by the ordinary Free-Thought Society. Because that is so, I say again that the law is administered quite unequally.
Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present—
The House was adjourned at Four Minutes after Three of the Clock until Monday next, 25th June.
In pursuance of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House), Mr. SPEAKER has nominated Captain Robert Croft Bourne to act during this Session as a temporary Chairman of Committees when requested by the Chairman of Ways and Means.