HL Deb 10 June 1898 vol 58 cc1268-74
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES The Earl of MORLEY)

formally moved the Third Reading of this Bill.

Question put.

Motion agreed to.

THE EARL OF MORLEY

I move that this Bill do pass.

Amendment proposed— Add to preamble of Bill before the last paragraph— And whereas it is desirable that cattle, sheep, and pigs bred in Ireland or other parts of the United Kingdom, and fed or fattened in the counties of Middlesex, Essex, Suffolk, Norfolk, Hertfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Northamptonshire, Kent, Surrey, Sussex, Berkshire, or other counties in the vicinity of the Metropolis, and the meats from such animals, after slaughter in the counties aforesaid, should enjoy the same market rights, privileges, and facilities of access to the purchasers of London and its suburbs that the corporation have provided for foreign animals. And whereas the Millwall Dock Company and the Agricultural Organising Agency, Limited, have provided at their own cost and risk the premises, machinery, plant, and commercial arrangements necessary and requisite for enabling the live stock owners of Ireland and other parts of the United Kingdom to enter into commercial relationship with the farmers of all the counties in proximity to the Metropolis that will enable them to receive and fatten home-bred animals and thereby to pro vide an increased supply of prime meats from healthy animals for the inhabitants of London and its suburbs. And whereas the companies aforesaid have agreed to provide British and Irish farmers with similar accommodation for home-bred animals that the Corporation provide for foreign animals, and to charge only the same rates and tolls for home-bred animals that are charged for foreign animals: And whereas it is for the interest of British and Irish farmers that the aforesaid Millwall Dock Company and Agricultural Organising Agency, Limited, should be at liberty to establish a market at the Millwall Dock for the reception and transfer of Irish live stock to British farmers, and to be provided with stalls in the Central Meat Market to enable the meat from the animals so disposed of to be brought to the market and sold by the aforesaid Agricultural Organising Agency, Limited, to the retail butchers or meat dealers of the Metropolis. Add the following clauses— 51. The Corporation shall consent to the Millwall Dock Company and the Agricultural Organising Agency, Limited, providing accommodation for the landing and lairage of live stock from Ireland and other parts of the United Kingdom, and for the establishment of a market by which the aforesaid animals may be sold by private treaty or public auction, or otherwise disposed of, as may be deemed expedient by the owners or their agents, and to the provision of accommodation for the slaughter of the animals and the effective treatment of their meat, offal, and byproducts. 52. The Corporation shall provide the Agricultural Organising Agency, Limited, with a sufficient number of stalls in the principal avenues of the Central Meat Market to enable the meat to be sold from animals slaughtered in the counties of Middlesex, Essex, Suffolk, Norfolk, Hertfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Buckinghamshire, Berkshire, Oxfordshire, Hampshire, Northamptonshire, Warwickshire, Kent, Surrey, Sussex, and other districts in the vicinity of the Metropolis, and that the Corporation shall be paid for such stalls, and the meats sent to them for sale, the same rent and tolls as are payable by the tenants of the Corporation under its by-laws, and the Agricultural Organising Agency, Limited, shall not be subjected to any restrictions in the conduct of its business other than those imposed upon the remainder of the tenants of the said market under the by-laws of the Corporation." —(Lord Stanley of Alderley.)

* LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

My Lords, whatever might be thought or said of the Amendments in my name, they refer to a serious Irish grievance, and one that is also a grievance and cause of loss to 12 counties round London. The authorship of the Amendments belongs to Mr. Tallerman. I have known, him for years by correspondence, and have full confidence in his knowledge and ability in respect to the distribution of produce and in respect to the interests of farmers. The history of the Irish trade in cattle with London is singular, and it is most extraordinary that the latter part of it, taken from the statistics of the Board of Agriculture has not attracted more attention, especially from the head of that Board. It appears that in ancient times the cattle trade from Ireland to London, and other parts of England, was very extensive, and employed much shipping. In 1665 and 1668, and again in 1680, in the reign of Charles II., Acts of Parliament were passed prohibiting the importation of cattle from Ireland and "other foreign parts." The last Act says that the previous Act of 1665 had been found beneficial, and that "it is now revived and continued for ever." The promoters of the Amendments say that it was passed for political reasons. There was neither any political nor religious reasons. It was purely and simply for the sake of protection of British cattle. Notwithstanding the Act of 1665, in 1666, after the fire of London, the Irish sent 30,000 beeves as a free gift to relieve the distress of the inhabitants of London. Before the Act of 1665 the average value of Irish cattle was 50s. each, and in the three years 1660, 1661, and 1662 the imports of cattle averaged 61,000 animals per annum. An address to Charles II. by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and his Council, dated August 15th, 1665, stated that— The turning of all their cattle upon their hands would necessarily make them lazy, since food would be so cheap as no man needed to labour for it, and so His Majesty would lose the virtue and industry of a whole kingdom. This was verified, for the value of beeves in Ireland was reduced from 50s. to 10s. each. This prohibition was maintained for 91 years, which brings us down to 1771. After that, the long wars would check the importation of cattle to any great extent, on account of the cumber some nature of the cargo. The dates of Acts prohibiting importation of Irish cattle, which have been quoted in the documents circulated from "Carte's Life of Ormond," are not correct; those I have mentioned are taken from the Statute Book, and they exonerate Charles II.'s Ministers from the accusation of ingratitude by prohibiting Irish cattle after the free gift of 30,000 beeves in 1666, since the prohibition took place the year before. On the other hand, it reduces the value of the gift from £75,000 to £15,000. But it is not allowable to look gift oxen any more than gift horses in the mouth, especially when the recipient of the gift has caused the depreciation. The modern and most recent figures of the Irish cattle trade show results as astonishing as those of 1660, inasmuch as those of 1894, 1895, 1896, and 1897 give cattle 826,954, 791,607, 631,560, and 740,012 respectively—a total number of 3,046,133, or a value of £30,461,330; and, including sheep and pigs, a value for four years of £41,640,496. These cattle, however, were imported into other parts of England, and during the same four years only 21 head of cattle, of a value of £210, entered the Thames, besides two sheep and four pigs; whilst during that time large quantities of cattle were imported from America, the greater part of which might have been supplied by Ireland and distributed throughout the counties round London to be fattened, to the great benefit of the farmers, especially in the impoverished and depopulated county of Essex. The figures of cattle imports in 1897 were, from the United States 416,299, Argentina 73,352, Canada 126,495. How is it that the Board of Agriculture has been blind to these figures which are its own, and has not sought to obtain at least equal facilities for Irish cattle while this Bill was passing through the other House? I forbear to say anything of the means by which the importers from the other hemisphere have obtained a footing in the London markets, because, in deference to the opinions of the Parliamentary agent of the City Corporation and of the Earl of Mayo, I do not intend to move the Amendments on the Notice Paper, preferring to leave it either to the Corporation to secure equal rights and treatment to their follow-countrymen, or to Her Majesty's Government to rectify the grievances now complained of.

THE EARL OF MORLEY

My Lords, I do not think it is necessary for me to discuss with my noble Friend the interesting history he has given us of the Irish cattle trade. Nor even do I think it is necessary to enter into the merits of the clauses he has moved. I am quite certain the House will not for a moment entertain the Amendment when I inform your Lordships of the principle of procedure which the acceptance of it would violate. This Bill has passed through all its stages in both Houses of Parliament, and now, at the last moment, when it is being read a third time, an important Amendment is introduced which is absolutely foreign to the Bill. This is a Bill introduced by the Corporation of London for the purpose of enabling them to enlarge the foreign cattle market at Deptford, and the Amendment of my noble Friend proposes to give certain private companies the right of accommodation there. My Lords, such an Amendment would not come within the notices of the Bill as it was deposited in Parliament. It would be most unfair to the promoters of the Bill to introduce such an Amendment at this stage, and it would, moreover, be contrary to the procedure of Parliament to do so.

THE EARL OF MAYO

My Lords, as the noble Lord who introduced this Amendment mentioned my name, I feel bound to say something with regard to it. I quite agree with my noble Friend the Chairman of Committees that it would be impossible to introduce such an Amendment at this stage, but I am glad that the noble Lord has drawn attention to the fact that there is at present no accommodation for the lairage of live stock from Ireland and other parts of the United Kingdom. No market can be established within seven miles round London without the consent of the Corporation, and the object of the Amendment is to get over that. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw the Amendment, because I do not think the Corporation will view with any hostility the bringing in a Bill to establish a market dealing with live stock from Ireland and other parts of the United Kingdom.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (the Earl of HALSBURY)

I understood the noble Lord to say that he did not move his Amendment.

THE EARL OF MAYO

The only way to deal with this matter would be to bring in a Bill in another Session.

* EARL FORTESCUE

My Lords, I think my noble Friend has exercised a wise discretion in not pressing his Amendment. At the same time, I think that great good may hereafter result from attention being called to the figures given by the noble Lord, showing the contrast between the large tirade in cattle some years ago and now. It cannot be said that the length of the voyage would be prohibitory, seeing that in Deptford we find cattle from the United States, from Canada, and, further still, from Argentina. I remember years ago expressing in this House my conviction that it was wasteful and inhuman to bring fat cattle over from those places alive, instead of in the shape of meat, because fat cattle particularly suffer from the bruises and the terror to which they are exposed in the course of their voyage. If, in these days of facilities for cold storage, they were imported in the shape of meat, the quality would be better and the quantity larger, and the difficulty of keeping the meat a few weeks or even months would be thus easily disposed of. We heard previously, I remember, complaints of the hardship inflicted on farmers by the exclusion, as a protection against contagion, of store cattle which used to be imported from Canada. I cannot help hoping that a certain amount of lean stock may hereafter be imported from Ireland into the port of London, and then be distributed, to recover the effects of their voyage, over the eastern counties of England, and slaughtered when they arrive at a proper state of fatness. If this were done it would confer great benefit upon the agriculturists who breed the cattle in Ireland, as well as upon those who fattened the cattle in England. I rejoice that my noble Friend has called attention to this subject, but I think the reasons urged against his pressing the Amendment are absolutely conclusive.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I understand that the noble Lord does not move his Amendment.

* LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

That is so, my Lord.

Question put.

Motion agreed to.