Sitting of 2 April 1873

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Juries (Ireland), nominated; Public Departments (Purchases, &c.), Lord George Hamilton discharged, Sir John Hay added.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—New Zealand Roads, &c. Loan Act (1870) Amendment* [116]; Vagrants Law Amendment* [120].
First Reading—Poor Allotments Management* [113]; Intestates Widows and Children* [114]; Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 3)* [115]; Shrewsbury School Property* [117]; Borough Franchise (Ireland)* [118]; County Franchise (Ireland)* [119].
Second Reading—Seduction Laws Amendment [10]; Gretton Chapel Marriages Legalization* [111].
Report—Portpatrick Harbour* [61].
Considered as amended—Marine Mutiny*.
Third Reading—Sites for Places of Religious Worship* [25], and passed.
Withdrawn—Metropolitan Buildings Act Amendment [54]; University Tests (Dublin) (No. 2)* [109].

SEDUCTION LAWS AMENDMENT BILL.
(Mr. Charley, Mr. Thomas Hughes, Mr. Eykyn Mr. Whitwell.)
[BILL 10.] SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. CHARLEY,in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, its principal object was to protect young females between the ages of 12 and 14. It was not necessary for him to enter at any length upon an explanation of the measure, because the main proposition was assented to in principle last year, a clause to the same purpose having been contained in his Bastardy Law Amendment Bill of last year, and the second reading of that Bill was agreed to without any objection having been taken to that provision. But at a subsequent stage the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Vance) having intimated his intention of opposing it, rather than run the risk of losing the whole Bill, he (Mr. Charley) assented to the omission of the clause, intimating at the same time his intention of prosecuting this subject in the next Session. As he had said, the main object of the Bill was to extend protection to girls between the ages of 12 and 14 years. At present the law now afforded the protection he now sought to female children between the ages of 10 and 12; and the 9 Geo. IV. c. 31, contained a clause, which was

469
re-enacted in the 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100—the Consolidation Statute relating to Offences against the Person—the abduction of an unmarried person under the age of 16 from the possession and against the will of her parent or guardian was made a misdemeanour. Now, his present object was to make that a statutable offence in respect to females between the ages of 12 and 14, which was not at present an offence at common law. For the necessity of such an enactment he would refer hon. Members to the last Report of the Rescue Society which was presided over by the Earl of Shaftesbury, and which was doing good work in London. The statistics given in this document disclosed a most distressing state of things. The number of young girls who had passed through the institution last year was 540; and a reference to their ages would show how much legislation on the subject was required. He had further to urge as an argument why the House should accept this legislation was, that the amendment of the law was required in the interests, not of the rich, but of the poor. The statutes to which he had already referred made the abduction of an heiress under 21 years of age a felony, subjecting the offender to penal servitude; and surely Parliament would not refuse to the female who was poor and defenceless the protection given to her who was rich and powerful. The clause simply proposed to enact that in the 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, the section relating to this offence shall be read as if the words were "twelve" and "fourteen," instead of "ten" and "twelve." He had also added a clause by which any owner or occupier of a house harbouring any girl under 16 for the purpose of prostitution should be guilty of a misdemeanour, or should be liable to summary conviction. The Bill contained another provision which, though not the main object of the Bill, was nevertheless of considerable importance. At present, in order to recover compensation for the injury inflicted by seduction, it was necessary to proceed upon a legal fiction—the parent or other next friend of the injured girl, and not the injured girl herself, brought the action on the plea that the damages sought to be recovered were for the loss of her service, and it was necessary to prove some service that could be lost before damages could be recovered. The Judges, indeed,
470
had from time to time ruled that the compensation need not be confined to the actual loss of service, but that the wounded feelings of the parent might be taken into account. This, however, was contrary to the strict reading of the law, and there were on record cases where the Court ruled that there was no redress because the girl was in the service of the defendant himself at the time he seduced her, and that there was no evidence that the father benefited by her service; but the Judges, no doubt, were ready to admit the very slightest evidence of service. In order to set this matter at rest he had introduced a clause which enacted, first, that an action for seduction might be brought by the parent or guardian of the girl seduced, and that it should not be necessary for the plaintiff to aver or prove that the girl was in his service at the time of the seduction, or that he thereby lost her services. This did but follow the ruling of the Judges, and made it clear that the damages were to be given without reference to the loss of services—in fact, abolished that fiction altogether. He did not propose to give any action where it did not now lie, except in the case—the seduction of an orphan minor. Here the Bill proposed that an action for seduction might be brought by a guardian ad litem admitted by the Court to sue. The hon. Member for White haven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) had given Notice of his intention to move the rejection of this Bill. The leaders of the Conservative party had declared that it was the peculiar function of that party to promote measures of social reform, and relying upon that gratifying assurance, he (Mr. Charley) had introduced several measures of that nature, and by the kind indulgence of this and the other House of Parliament had succeeded in passing them into law, and he trusted he should meet with similar indulgence in his present attempt. The hon. Member for White haven, however, appeared to think that the function of the Conservative party was obstruction. The scenes exhibited in our streets were a disgrace to a nation which claimed to stand in the vanguard of the civilized world, and they were a by-word among foreigners. The best way to remedy existing evils was not to prosecute the unhappy women, but to prevent girls from falling; and if a man betrayed the confidence of these

471
young creatures, let him do it at his peril. If he escaped punishment, this House would at least have the satisfaction of interposing a barrier to prevent the committing of this great wrong.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Charley.)
MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK,in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, his main objection to the Bill had nothing to do with its merits at all—this was an attempt to alter the common law of the country, and it was an attempt which ought not to have been made by a private Member, and which ought not to be sanctioned. The alteration in the law, if made at all, ought to be proposed by a responsible Minister of the Crown after consultation with the Judges and the legal officers. There was no reason why the House should be asked to trouble itself with small tinkerings of the law which could do no good whatever. The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Charley) tried his 'prentice hand last year on the Bastardy Laws, and the only result was that of throwing a number of women with their offspring on the world. The hon. and learned Member, in the Bill now before the House, introduced three new principles—first, a change of the age; secondly, an alteration in the mode of dealing with those who kept disorderly houses; and, thirdly, an alteration in the Common Law with regard to the ground of action mentioned in the latter section of the Bill. If his hon. Friend had confined himself to an alteration of the, age he (Mr. C. Bentinck) would not have opposed the proposal, because he believed that such an alteration might very properly be made; but then it ought to be made on the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government. As to the second principle of the Bill, the 25 Geo. II. c. 26, provided for such cases, for it enabled two householders to lay information against any person who kept a disorderly house. And if that Act was not sufficient there was the 24 & 25 Vict., which accomplished everything which this section of the Bill proposed to do. As to the third principle, by which an alteration of a very material kind was proposed in the Common Law of the land, he confessed he was unable to follow the logic of the hon.
472
and learned Gentleman. It was quite plain that the hon. and learned Member had not, in drafting his Bill, consulted an experienced draftsman, who would have been informed that the pretence of referring to former Acts was highly objectionable. The hon. and learned Member said that the loss of service was a mere fiction, and that it did not prevent substantial damages being given; but if that were so, what was the reason for altering the law of the country? This loss of service, which was no bar to a proper action, was an important safeguard against actions which were not proper, and if it were done away with the door would be thrown open to extortion without limit. He could not believe that Her Majesty's Government could assent to the second reading of this Bill. He had quite as strong a desire as the hon. Member for Salford to prevent injuries from being inflicted on anyone, though he did not pretend to indulge in sentimentality, and he had been compelled to adopt his present course by a sense of duty. If Her Majesty's Government would bring in a Bill on their own responsibility he would be willing to acquiesce in any decision that might be come to. He was sorry that the Home Secretary was not in his place, but he would ask the hon. and learned Attorney General to assist him in getting rid of this tinkering Bill. He begged to move that the Bill be read a second time upon that day six months.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he always did honour to courage in any hon. Member of this House, and he had before now had reason to respect the courage of the hon. Member for White haven (Mr. C. Bentinck). He was far from disputing the right of the hon. Member to oppose this or any other Bill, but he lamented that the hon. Member should have selected this for his opposition, and he regretted still more the ground upon which he had rested that opposition—upon the ground, namely, that this Bill had been introduced by an unofficial Member of the House; and he had broadly laid down, that no private Member of the

473
House was entitled to introduce a Bill for the improvement of the social relations of the country. [Mr. C. BENTINCK: I did not say anything of the sort.] At any rate the hon. Member stated, and he appealed to himself to confirm what he said, that this was a subject which ought to be dealt with only by the responsible Ministers of the Crown; and he added that the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Charley) who had introduced the Bill, and other hon. Members who attempt to deal with similar subjects, ought to be considered tinkering Members of the House. He thought, therefore, that the interpretation which he first put upon the whole tenor of the speech of the hon. Member for White haven was true, and that he was not very much mistaken. [Mr. C. BENTINCK: You are mistaken.] In what was he mistaken? The inevitable conclusion from the hon. Member's remarks was that unless the Government introduced amendments of the law on subjects such as this, they ought to be obstructed if introduced by anyone else. ["No, no!"] The hon. Member spoke of the Government as the only responsible body in the House. Every Member of the House was responsible, and the House itself was responsible; and that as much for its omissions in meeting the necessities of society by legislation, as for the errors it might commit in its attempts to legislate. He hoped the House would repudiate the novel theory set up by the hon. Member for White haven. The House had gradually accumulated to itself the chief legislative power in this country, and had also while doing this trenched upon the functions of the Executive, and he held that the House had no right to repudiate the responsibility which it had undertaken. Having thus dealt with the general allegation by which the hon. Member for White haven had attempted to inflict an incapacity on the whole of the unofficial Members of the House, he (Mr. Newdegate) agreed with him thus far—that he thought that too many measures were introduced into this House by unofficial Members. This was a Parliament chosen by a new constituency—it was elected under different circumstances from other Parliaments, and he hoped that the unofficial Members of the House would limit their attempts at legislation to measures which they had reason to believe they were capable of
474
dealing with effectually, and of carrying into law. That was the kind of restriction which he trusted the common-sense of this House would impose—for it was quite as necessary to the efficient action of this House, to the independent action of the House, as the introduction of proper measures. He would now pass to the substance of this Bill. There was a part of it—he alluded to the third clause—which the hon. Member for Salford did not seem disposed to insist upon, and he thought he was quite right. The main purpose of this Bill was the protection of girls under 14 years of age. He would not be squeamish in speaking on this subject, nor would he touch upon those religious considerations which might be very well evoked; but he said this to the House—They knew that in this country there was a great excess of female population; and he asked every man in this House whether there was any excuse whatever for the seduction of these children? That was the plain, manly view to take of this question. Apart from all questions of a strict morality, then, this seduction of children was, in every sense, a gratuitous offence, and it was therefore an offence which ought to be visited by punishment. Years ago he supported his late Colleague Mr. Spooner when he introduced a measure for the restraint of seduction; he had never regretted that he did so, and he should on this occasion support the hon. Member for Salford in following—reasonably and cautiously as he believed—in the footsteps of his late Colleague. The hon. Member for White haven had observed that there were some portions of this Bill which needed to be guarded, and in that he agreed with him. But he felt the force of the objection urged by the hon. Member for Salford, to that practical restriction imposed by the present state of the law, which to a certain extent made service—that was, the engagements of the female—to be a condition inseparable from an action on account of her seduction. There could be no question that this fiction had been the occasion of very great abuse. But the House should remember that the principle of this Bill was not so much directed to the repression of that class of crime—that its primary object was the protection of mere children. He thought the case for this Bill was amply made out—that it was for the protection, to a certain ex-

475
tent, of all women, but chiefly for that of children. The hon. Member for White haven said that there was one provision of the Bill which would enable some other persons, than the parents to appear as their legally constituted defenders, and that that might lead to abuse. Well, it would be the business of the hon. Member for White haven and the House to see that such provisions were introduced into the Bill, when in Committee, as should guard against any such malpractices by scoundrelly attornies. But there was another provision imported into other Acts of Parliament which he thought this Bill needed. He thought it ought to contain a clause requiring that the evidence of the child or woman who had been seduced, or who pleaded that she had been injured, should in some manner be corroborated. He thought that this would be a very proper provision to introduce into the Bill when it got into Committee; but he rejoiced in the belief that this House would not, on the Motion for its second reading, reject this Bill, which had been prepared by a competent Member of this House for the protection of mere children from the practices of vile seducers.
MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he could not admit the validity of the objection which had been urged by the hon. Member for White haven (Mr. C. Bentinck) that this Bill was brought forward by a private Member instead of the Government; for nearly all questions of social legislation during the last 30 years had been initiated by private Members. He appealed to the House whether the Factory Acts and numerous other Acts for the amelioration of the social condition of the people were not brought in by the present Lord Shaftesbury when he was a private Member. Nor could he agree that the flaw which had been discovered in the Bastardy Law Amendment Act of last Session was a defect which belonged to the measure as originally introduced by the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Charley) It was entirely owing to the hasty and harassing mode of legislation pursued at 2 o'clock in the morning. While he remained a Member of that House he hoped he should be regarded as one of what the hon. Member for White haven called the "tinkering Members." He had placed his name on the back of this Bill mainly for this reason—because its clauses were directed to the
476
better protection of children against seduction. He entirely endorsed the noble and manly speech of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate). With every word that fell from that hon. Member he entirely agreed. He had some doubts as to the 4th clause of the Bill, but with respect to the first three clauses he could not see what objection could be made to them. He had sat on the Royal Commission with reference to Contagious Diseases, and there were certain points on which the Commissioners were perfectly unanimous in recommending an alteration of the law. The 59th section of their Report, and the final recommendation it contained had immediate reference to the evils dealt with by the first three clauses of this Bill. He might refer to the evidence of the Chief Constable of Portsmouth and the Matron of Devonport Hospital to show that the ranks of prostitution were recruited from mere children, and might mention as a fact that at Plymouth there were more than 300 children from 12 to 15 on the streets at one time. It had been brought to his notice again and again as an employer of labour that mere children of 12, 13, and 14 years were seduced by men of double their years and in a better position of life. A fearful amount of seduction was going on daily, not only between masters and servants, but in dancing saloons, and other sinks of vice in large towns. In factory towns it was heart-rending to see young girls of 15 who had been seduced, and were about to become mothers. Was it reasonable that while the Factory Act prevented a child from working more than half time till she was past 13, she should be held competent, according to the present theory of the law, to assent to her own seduction at the age of 12? If they were to be treated as children of tender age in one case they ought in another. This was peculiarly a question for the poor. The rich could take care of their children, and they knew what precautions were taken to hedge them round and prevent them from being contaminated by the sights and sounds of great cities, while the young daughter of a poor mechanic, or labourer, had to encounter all the dangers of the streets in going to and from her work, often late at night, and therefore every possible protection ought to be thrown over her by the law. It was quite notorious

477
that a large proportion of the prostitutes in towns were children under 16, and the various police inspectors examined before the Committee on this subject expressed their unhesitating opinion that they were inveigled into brothels by the old prostitutes. He implored the House to pass this Bill, amended if they liked in Committee, so as to give some additional protection to children at all events. He did not consider the other parts of the Bill of such importance; but he should rejoice if anything could be done to lessen the terrible evil that now existed.
MR. STRAIGHTsaid, he hoped that the House would allow the Bill to be read a second time, and in saying that he must add that he strongly deprecated the proposition propounded by the hon. Member for White haven, that, in social reforms of the important character contemplated by the present measure, private Members were not to interfere by propounding schemes for legislation. It was a new principle for the guidance of the House he was not prepared to adopt, that when the hands of Government happened to be so full, individual Members competent for the task were not at least to attempt the alteration or removal of defects found to exist in the administration of the law. The hon. and learned Member for Salford (Mr. Charley) deserved the warmest approval for his present effort, and while his Bill was in many respects inartistic and faultily drawn, it was undoubtedly a step in the right direction. As to the second clause, it was open to the well-grounded criticism of the hon. Member for White haven (Mr. C. Bentinck), who justly enough appreciated the difficulty and confusion that must inevitably arise from framing a section in one Act with a reference, for the purpose of construing it, to a clause in some preceding statute. It was most unfair and worrying to the Judges who had to administer the law, and entailed both upon them and others concerned in the administration of justice endless and unnecessary trouble. This, however, was a defect that could be amended in Committee, and did not go to the essence of the Bill. Putting the proposal into plain English, what it contemplated was, that a child of 12 should not be a woman for the purpose of giving her consent to offences upon her, but that up to 12 and 14 such offences
478
should respectively be felonies and misdemeanours whether she consented or not. As the law at present stood, the Judges, in a natural and laudable desire to protect young creatures of so tender an age as 12, were disposed to construe the most slender evidence as indicative of non-consent. If, however, the limit were placed at 14, there would be far less likelihood of a tendency in this direction. Anything that could be done to check this wicked, and it was to be feared, far too prevalent offence of debauching young girls was a step that the House, even at the instigation of a private Member, might well undertake. In reference to the third section, he (Mr. Straight) presumed that what the hon. and learned Member for Salford contemplated was to give a less technical and more summary mode of procedure for the purpose of punishing those who, without bringing themselves within the operation of the 25th of George II., carried on a most nefarious traffic, that filled the streets of great towns and supplied their places of public resort and amusement with recruits. As things at present stood, great difficulty and expense presented themselves in the way of a prosecution, and it was often impossible to obtain that evidence of a public nuisance which would sustain an indictment. This clause of the Bill had many defects, and would require considerable alteration, but it might be turned into a tangible and practical shape. It was to be expected that on the fourth section there would be considerable difference of opinion, but in principle the view of the hon. and learned Member for Salford was right. At a glance it was an obvious anomaly, that a woman having sustained the personal injury of seduction should have to sue by some other person—either her parent or her master—and that before she could recover damages such parent or master was bound to show loss of service by reason of such wrongful act of the defendant. The result of this was to be found in numerous decisions in the law books, where in cases, no doubt disclosing great hardship, the Judges had leaned to an elasticity of construction, that, for instance, had led to the making of tea being regarded as a service sufficient to meet the demands of the law and to justify a plaintiff to recover. He (Mr. Straight) looked at the question

479
from no sentimental point of view, but he held that it would be far better to establish some legal landmarks of a practical and common sense character by which Judges might hereafter be guided. To him it seemed that the far better course would be to make the action for seduction a personal action to be brought by the woman herself, and to require her, as in actions for breach of promise and in proceedings for bastardy orders, to find corroboration. While he could not accept without reserve the proposal upon this point made by the Bill, he would unhesitatingly vote for the second reading, in the hope that the subject might be fully and carefully considered, and that some fair and intelligible alternative might present itself which would put an end to a great social as well as legal anomaly.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that not with standing the severe remarks of the hon. Member for White haven on the neglect of the Law Officers of the Crown in not proposing legislation on this subject, and for their general ill-success in the legal measures they did propose, he could not take on himself the responsibility of objecting to the second reading of this Bill. Indeed, one of the clauses of the Bill was copied from the Bill introduced by the Government last year, and therefore whatever objection existed as to the phraseology of the clause was equally good against the Government clause. The first alteration of the law provided in the second clause was a decided improvement of the existing law. The present law drew a distinction between the offence of an improper connection with a girl under 10 years, and one between that age and 12 years—the former being a felony punishable with penal servitude or two years imprisonment with hard labour, and the latter a misdemeanour; and in neither case was the consent of the girl held to have any effect on the criminality of the offender; and the present Bill proposed to extend the ages to 12 years and 14 years respectively. The first of these alterations was an improvement in the law of which he (the Attorney General) warmly approved. At the same time, he thought the better course would be—instead of making the alteration in a special Act relating to Bastardy to alter the 24 & 25 Victoria, which was the Consolidation Statute relating to offences
480
against the person—so as to make the alteration a part of the known criminal code of the land. He fully shared in the noble sentiments and manly feelings of the hon. Members for North Warwickshire and Nottingham, but he was sorry to say that as a lawyer he was unable to give his support to the second alteration—that which raised the age from 12 years to 14. And his reason was this—the law of England—and indeed the law of all the European nations—fixed the age at which persons were competent to consent to marriage at 12 for women and 14 for men. That being a well-known and clearly established principle of English law he was not prepared to make sexual connection with a girl over 12 years a criminal offence where the girl was a consenting party. With respect to the third clause—that which made it a misdemeanour to harbour girls under 16 for the purposes of prostitution—the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. C. Bentinck) was in error in saying that the present law was sufficient. The present law was intended to deal—and no doubt to some extent did deal successfully—with disorderly houses. But the object of the present clause was to prevent, so far as it could be prevented, the harbouring of young girls for the purposes of prostitution. This was a traffic which might be carried on without any obvious outrage of decency; but while he admitted it would not be very easy to put it into effect, this particular clause was directed against a real evil which no existing law touched; and he could not take on himself the responsibility of refusing to read it a second time. The hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) had fallen into an unintentional error in speaking of the age at which girls were constantly consigned to prostitution in our great towns. He had greatly exaggerated the extent to which girls of tender age were engaged in prostitution in our streets. In all the towns where the Contagious Diseases Acts had been in operation the traffic in girls of that age was absolutely at an end. He felt it was very important that this statement should be made. So much for the first two portions of the Bill. With regard to that part of it which related to actions for seduction, he was not prepared to give it his support. An action for seduction was an anomalous proceeding, and the law in that respect was not in a

481
satisfactory state—it was founded manifestly on a fiction which was contrary to common sense. The law was—You must show some kind of service and loss of service in order to found the action; but that done, the damages need not be limited to the loss of service. Sixpence might cover the injury sustained from loss of service, and the damages of £10,000 be awarded for injury to the feelings. He would not stand up for such a state of the law; but if they were to alter it, he would prefer doing so in this way:—The action should be at the suit of the woman herself; but he would not give a right of action for what he might call an ordinary seduction—that is, an improper intercourse between a young man and a young woman—an action should not be allowed or maintained except where there had been on the part of the man something like fraud or violence. There were many cases in which women had obtained verdicts where they had not taken proper care of themselves. The more we made a woman feel that she was to look after herself and not yield to inducements to go wrong, the better in his judgment would it be for the whole female sex. If he could alter the law he would alter it in the direction he had indicated. The alteration now proposed seemed to be in the wrong direction; for, though it got rid of one particular fiction, loss of service, it would encourage fictitious actions, and so open the door to abuse. He would rather repeal the present law, and pass another based on sounder principles, than alter the existing law in a wrong direction. While assenting to the second reading of the Bill, he gave the hon. Member fair notice of what was implied in that assent.
MR. A. EGERTONsupported the second reading of the Bill, with some hesitation, because hon. Members scarcely knew what it was they were discussing. The second section of the Bill was to be re-modelled, the third was to be withdrawn, and the fourth was to be materially altered; so that the House was now placed at a serious disadvantage as to the actual proposals that were to be embodied in the Bill. No one could doubt the serious nature of the grievance proposed to be remedied, but the proposed change in respect of age was a serious one, and ought not to be made without great consideration.
MR. CANDLISHwas glad to hear that the Government intended to support the second reading of the Bill, though he regretted that the Attorney General had shown hostility to the second part of the second clause, which raised the age at which consent could be given, from 12 to 14 years. He hoped that the hon. and learned Gentleman would yet be able to see his way to the acceptance of the provision.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, they ought clearly to understand what they were doing. He understood that the assent of the Government was given to that part of the second section which involved the principle that up to the age of 12 no consent should be legal. It was quite true there might be grievous cases of hardship above that age; but still it was necessary to be cautious in going further. No one would wish to prevent any proper interference with immoral trading; but the clause relating to this subject would require to be made more accurate and definite. In such measures they should not look merely to philanthropy, but the House would do well to consider the moral effect of legislation which went too far. There were no trials for seduction which did not do more harm than good; and, if convictions were secured, the fact that some suffered did not check others whose imaginations and passions were aroused by the details of the trials. It was difficult to keep the Courts clear of young men, and women were sometimes only kept out by forcibly excluding them. An increasing number of these cases would be the means of increasing the evil. We must not, for the sake of punishing the seducer, encourage young women to rely upon legal compensation. It was not the really virtuous who were ready to expose their shame; and there was at least danger that hon. Gentlemen with the best intentions would only encourage the vicious. He hoped such would not be misled by the desire to do what was morally right into promoting measures which would encourage what was morally wrong.
MR. EYKYN,whose name was on the back of the Bill, said, he believed its operation would be beneficial, and that it would do something to remove a blot and a stain upon our civilization. He had recently visited the East-end of the metropolis, and he could say with confidence that the legislation would prove

483
beneficial in that quarter. He hoped the hon. Member for White haven would not put the House to the trouble of dividing.
MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, that as his case seemed to be admitted by the House and by the Government, he would not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed for Tuesday 20th May.

METROPOLIS BUILDINGS ACT AMENDMENT BILL— [BILL 54.]
(Dr. Brewer, Mr. W. M. Torrens, Mr. McArthur, Mr Locke.)

SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
DR. BREWER,in asking the House to read a second time the Bill for amending the 55th clause of the 7 & 8 Vict., c. 84, which he had had the honour to lay before them, said he had felt great confidence that, unless he failed signally in his simple narrative of the facts and history of the case, he should carry the House with him. In the year 1844 the Government of the day entrusted the then Lord Lincoln to bring in and conduct through the House a Bill for the regulation of buildings, new and old. It consisted of 120 clauses; it contained 15 closely printed pages of Schedules, with 8 lithograph diagrams, all referring to the height and thickness of the walls of warehouses and private dwellings. In the 55th clause of the Act, however, by the abrupt introduction of four words in the 7th line, one of the three methods by which the metropolis was supplied with meat—namely, by animals bought by the retail butcher, and kept by him in his private lairage, to be slaughtered as and when required to supply demand—was, after the expiration of 30 years, to be abolished. He asked any experienced Member of the House whether legislation vitally affecting the food supply of this metropolis could be fairly dealt with, stifled by a position so cramped as this? This section of the 55th clause would come into operation next year (1874). It was a bold prophecy of the Government of the day to affirm what was to take place in 30 years' time—a bold forecast to
484
pass a sumptuary law, with this simple disadvantage above others of its class, that it prejudicially and not beneficially affected the cost of living of the common people—a law interfering with a trade of primal supply and demand—a law to come in force 30 years after its enactment, and this without a single provision for rendering the carrying of the law into effect practicable. His case did not require him to deny, but to acknowledge the gross and flagrant neglect of needful sanitary precautions and conditions, of social conveniences and the duties of humanity which led to the outcry against intramural slaughter-houses. He took part in that outcry. That the private and public slaughter-houses, as they then existed, must be dealt with by the Legislature the metropolis felt and demanded. But how dealt with? By means of extermination, as contemplated by this clause, or by the means suggested both by the Select Committee to whom the House referred this subject in 1866, and in conformity to suggestions made by a Committee some 12 years before, and on whose Report the Government took action, resulting in the creation of a system of inspection and licensing, with jurisdiction given to local governing bodies in conjunction with the magistrates in petty session, empowering them to grant or to refuse licences to any private or other slaughterhouse which was unsuited for that object, or to discriminate and licence either for the killing of beasts or sheep, as to them seemed suitable—a system confessedly beneficial, and, wherever carried out faithfully and in the true spirit of the Act—absolutely and undeniably successful. It need not be dwelt on here that in some parts of the metropolis the local governing bodies did not appear to have been educated up to the required standard, and that sheds had been recommended for licence to the magistrates, ill-adapted for the purpose. This was, perhaps, a blot in the Act, but one easily hit and easily erased. What would be easier than to require the magistrates, as they acted in granting or renewing the spirit-dealer's licence by calling in the police attached to the district to ascertain the character of the houses in question; so in granting or renewing licenses for slaughter-houses to call in the medical officers of health and Inspectors, and in any doubtful case

485
to require the shed to be visited, withholding the licence till the report of the visitors was received, and then dealing with the case summarily. Add any further security of additional conditions precedent to application for the licence, as to apparatus, ventilation, and other accommodation, and all these private slaughter-houses would be, what the vast majority already were, as clean and wholesome as any private gentleman's kitchen or larder. But these useful amendments to the Licensing Act were rendered impossible, till the House had dealt with this section of the 55th clause. It was on other grounds also impossible to continue the clause as it stood. The endless litigation it would entail, the great uncertainty felt by legal men as to the meaning of this clause, taken in conjunction with the 56th and 58th clauses—the doubt as to the interpretation of the terms used, must lead to the repealing of this part of this section. If the House would look at the 56th clause, they would see that it purported to give direction to the trade how they were to proceed to obtain a suspension of judgment, a mitigation of penalty, or, even in conjunction with the 57th clause, immunity from prosecution in carrying on their trade, perhaps; but the 56th clause was so obscure that, as he was advised, the legal profession could not come to a decision as to what interpretation to put on it. He had in his hand the opinion of two of the most eminent counsel in London, that of Mr. Manisty and Mr. Poland, in relation to part of Clause 56, which he would read to the House—"We have carefully considered the first enactment in Section 56, and are unable to give any meaning to it." And as to Clause 58, which enabled the prosecuted butcher to have the matter tried by a jury, there was no little obscurity as to what was to be submitted, whether the fact, or the law, or, further, the function of legislation. Then, as to the appeal to the Court of Queen's Bench. Was it intended that Court should decide whether each of the 1,100 butchers who were to be brought before the Court had done all that science had directed to render their trade innocuous, and, if so, whether they were to go a step further and say to the Court below—"Your interpretation of the law is right, but you shall not carry out your sentence?" A pretty trap for a class of tradesmen!
486
A position intolerable! The House could hardly, in this view, reject his (Dr. Brewer's) Bill. No man could have made himself acquainted with the operation of the system of inspection and licensing without admitting that, in this direction, the Legislature have proceeded with marked success, and that if in parts of Westminster, the City, and south and east of the metropolis, the system had partially failed, the failures were attributable to the neglect of the Inspectors or local governing bodies. Of course, if Inspectors, not altogether uninfluenced, have set their minds on abolishing the live meat markets altogether, and of driving the metropolis into the dead meat supply exclusively, it cannot be surprising that they should fail to see the force of that evidence, which the Select Committee of the House, whatever their private predilections, could not withstand. This only would he add, that he could name men of high repute in sanitary science who perfectly agreed in his assertion of the success in a sanitary point of view of the action of the Legislature in passing the Licensing Acts, and in the conclusion of the Select Committee, that private slaughter-houses—if well kept—were not injurious to the public health. It was not wonderful after what he had said that the Building Act of 1844 found no favour in the House; accordingly they saw that in 1855 the Legislature repealed 111 out of the 120 clauses of which the Act consisted, and in 1866 referred the subject-matter of this section of the 55th clause to a Select Committee consisting of 21 Members, with the following Order of the House—
"That it be an Instruction to the Committee on 'Trade in Animals' that they enquire how far it is desirable to prevent, restrict, or regulate the slaughter of animals in the metropolis, or other populous places, and to report their opinion thereon to the House."
The Committee consisted of Mr. Milner Gibson, Lord Naas, Lord Cranborne, Mr. Graham, The O'Conor Don, Sir Matthew Ridley, Mr. Banks Stanhope, Mr. Graves, Mr. Alderman Salomons, Mr. Edward Egerton, Mr. Goschen, Mr. Cogan, Mr. Carnegie, Mr. Dent, Mr. Holland, Mr. Leader, Mr. Norwood, Mr. Wilbraham Egerton, Sir James Fergusson, and Sir Morton Peto—Gentlemen of great influence, and representing all views and all interests on the subject. In the 13th paragraph of the Report of

487
that Select Committee, it was declared that "the live meat markets are not unhealthy in themselves, nor are slaughter-houses, if well kept, injurious to the public health." Although they had a tendency to aggregate round them trades which were objectionable. Here, then, fell to pieces the whole groundwork on which this prohibition in the 55th clause, in relation to retail butchers' private slaughter-houses was founded, for it so happened that the clause was preceded by a Preamble, alleging the reason for the prohibition of the trades contained in the clause—
"And now for the purpose of making provision concerning businesses offensive or noxious, be it enacted with regard to the following businesses:—Blood-boiler, bone-boiler, fellmonger, soap-boiler, tallow-melter, tripe-boiler, slaughterer of cattle, sheep, or horses.… from the expiration of 30 years, it shall cease to be lawful to carry on such business within such distances, &c."
This business of butcher's private slaughter-house the Select Committee of the House declared "not to be injurious to the public health" itself; but it was in this clause classed arbitrarily with businesses both offensive and objectionable, and further it was no less arbitrarily coupled with the knacker's trade, to which in every essential particular it was antagonistic. Why tie the butcher to the knacker? Cattle and sheep were killed for human sustenance; they were given for food to man by Him who had the right so to dispose of them. They were killed to support the existence and re-invigorate the exhausted strength of man—that was the express object for which they were bred and reared. Was it so with horses? Were they not killed because they were diseased, for the most part; never, surely, in fulfilment of the object for which they were reared? It mattered little how far from human habitation tallow was melted, blood and bones were boiled, or horses were slaughtered, but it made all the difference in the world, especially to the humbler stratum of society, whether the flesh they depended on for their sustenance—their meat supply on the only day in the week perhaps on which they could afford the luxury, were fresh, whole some, and attainable, which it would not be if private slaughterhouses were abolished. Up to this time the metropolis had been supplied by three methods—1st, by country killed meat—the dead meat market; 2ndly, by meat slaughtered in London by car-
488
case butchers, who sent it to the wholesale markets; and 3rdly, by meat slaughtered in London, as and when required, by retail butchers in their private slaughter-houses, all now duly inspected and licensed, to meet immediate or known demands. The House must be under no misapprehension as to the position in which London would immediately find herself if this part of the 55th clause of the old Act were not virtually repealed—namely, in the substitution of one source of supply, and that the least reliable, for the three sources now and from time immemorial enjoyed by this metropolis. He was warranted in saying that few persons comparatively seemed to know or realize what the dimensions of this metropolis really were, and what the magnitude of the question before them. They read letters in the Press affirming that London covers an area of 10 square miles—again, that it contained little short of 100,000 houses; and in the Select Committee a Member of great experience and weight in the House, Question 5013, said—
"I asked the question upon the supposition not that there is to be one public slaughterhouse, but that there are to be distinct slaughterhouses, and that they will be within a mile or two."
Schemes had been proposed, in many cases, on the hypotheses to which he (Dr. Brewer) had referred. But what were the real factors of this sum? What was the actual state of the case? Why, that London covers not an area of 10 square miles, but of 117 square miles. And was this metropolis, with its area of 117 square miles and a population of 3,500,000—the largest meat consumers in Europe—to be tied down to the dead meat market alone? His hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) saw this clearly enough, for he stigmatized his as a retrograde policy, in seeking by his Bill to discourage the dead-meat market scheme for the metropolis; but there must exist no doubt on that score. Let him ask why the carcase butcher's trade should be tolerated when the retail butcher's trade in his own fresh-killed meat was abolished? Nay, the Report of the Select Committee would by the House be deemed conclusive on this head, for finding fault with the existing practice of the carcase butchers. In Paragraph 16 the Committee added—

489
"The slaughter-houses of retail butchers stand on a different footing; their abolition would cause great hardship to many butchers, who have slaughter-houses adjoining their shops, and can slaughter animals as they require them under their own superintendence."
But the objection went much further than to carcase butchers; it extended also to public abattoirs in very large towns altogether. The Select Committee, under evident misapprehension of the nature of the evidence he was about to tender, brought up a witness from Liverpool, whose complaint was that the whole neighbourhood of the public slaughter-house there was rendered noxious by reason of the effluvia and decomposition going on, consequent on the number of animals brought together to be killed, and the neglect to remove the blood and other matter which found their way into the public sewers, and caused increase of fever and other zymotic diseases. One leading Member of the Committee got out of the witness that the district was suffering great deprivation consequent on loss of employment, which the witness seemed unable fully to appreciate, but the House would. The mortality in Liverpool in the decade 1851 to 1860 had been 33·32 per 1,000, or 100 to 3,000. In the year preceding his evidence it appears to have risen to 37. In 1872, however, it fell to 27·00 per 1,000 (81 in 3,000), owing to the more prosperous trade and condition of the people. London, from 1851 to 1860, had a mortality of 27·76 per 1,000; but in 1872 it fell to 21·40 per 1,000. But if disease be due to private slaughterhouses, it was London which should have had the high mortality, and not Liverpool; because London, and not Liverpool, had in it 1,100 private slaughterhouses, and Liverpool had not one. To revert once more to the dead meat market. From the evidence, and even from the Report of the Select Committee, it was clear beyond dispute that London could not be adequately supplied with meat from this source alone, for although in cool and fresh seasons of the year, London, at enhanced prices, could be supplied to a great extent with dead meat, yet in hot and sultry weather—a period extending over three months fitfully—London could not depend on the dead meat market. The evidence was irresistible that there were seasons wherein meat became tainted, within the eight
490
or ten hours after being killed required for the "setting of the flesh," and then on the butchers' private slaughter-houses not his customers alone, but the whole trade of the metropolis mainly, if not wholly, depended for their supply of fresh, wholesome meat. Mr. Butler gave evidence that in transmitting a consignment of meat from Aberdeen to London in the month of May he lost by heat 973 stone; and being asked if it was a very uncommon occurrence for him, his replywas—"It occurs frequently through the year." He need not remind the House that it was the movement or friction of the fleshy particles which caused decomposition; and that the setting of the car case was indispensable to its being moved with safety. In hot weather some of the finest fat beasts—short-horns weighing 1,2001bs and over, and worth to the butcher in his own lairage £35—were known to set very imperfectly, especially if crowded into a confined area with many hundreds of other beasts, huddled together by mere slaughtermen, who had no regard for the ultimate condition of the meat and no interest in its sale. And here he must notice a most gratuitous charge against a whole class of London tradesmen—namely, that of cruelty to the animals they had purchased for their private slaughterhouses. That would be sheer suicidal folly. No man pursued evil as evil, and for its own sake, in direct opposition to his interest and the strongest motives which could influence human actions. If a short-horn in fine condition were overdriven only half-an-hour the flesh set badly and the market was lost. If the beast had a bruise—and it bruised very easily—the joint in which it occured was unsaleable. Surely, they would take the best security for good treatment in the interest the man had in the comfort and case of his beast no less than in the pride he felt in the condition of the meat which he displayed in his shop front. The still more incredible statement that retail butchers objected to the doing away with their slaughter-houses because they were now enabled, undetected, to purchase and slaughter diseased beasts was easily disposed of. First, he asked, where was it that the rejected contract meat—the skin of which, like a fine layer of parchment, tightened on the shrivelled flesh—came from? Invariably, in his experience, from the dead meat supply. It

491
was notorious that breeders and feeders did not care to send their best meat when they knew that the worst would happen to their cattle either at the port, or at many miles from their purposed destination or market. There were no means of telling, save very generally, whether meat sent to the dead meat market was killed in the early stages of disease, because the journey dulled the "bright gloss" of all dead meat, whereas there was no better security against the purchase of diseased meat than on obtaining it from the retail butchers' private slaughter-houses; because the rest the beast obtained in the private "lairage" allowed the disease, if it existed, to develop, and the car case lost its market; its condition was obviously and apparently deteriorated, and as to its escaping undetected, this was incredible on every score. He had said that to a great extent London could be supplied with dead meat in cool and temperate seasons, but only at enhanced prices. They must examine into the causes of this enhancement. First, there was the reason given in the Report of the Select Committee—
"Compulsory slaughter at a port, like compulsory slaughter at a market, is more expensive to the butcher, hampers the trade, and will raise the price to the consumer."
But, further, the Select Committee of 1866 examined Mr. Salmon—manager of the traffic in the cattle department of the South-Western Railway—who stated that—
"The railway could never carry dead meat so reasonably as it did live meat, in consequence of the double porterage required for dead meat, and the loss and risk in transport incurred by the managers. The carriage of one ton of dead meat from Liverpool to Manchester," he added, "costs 18 s., whereas a waggon for seven beasts costs only 15 s. 6d. Live meat," he said, "cannot deteriorate to the extent dead meat does in transit, and this results from the simple fact of the flesh being moved."
But, correct as this observation was, other witnesses bore testimony to the injuries sustained by dust, and the smoke from the funnel finding its way through the venetians of the meat vans. Witnesses further stated that the packing of several car cases in sacks generated heat, which accelerated decomposition. In the conclusions at the end of the evidence the Select Committee drew attention to the fact that "the trade generally objected to a dead meat system, that the
492
supply was too irregular to be relied on;" and that the consignees lost their market through this irregularity; and that this extended to the condition of the meat as much as to the time at which it was received. They stated that they had hitherto met this irregularity by buying cattle and keeping them alive in their private "lairs" to slaughter when required. Meat so dealt with was worth more by 30 s. a-head than if obtained at the public markets. In Answer (4,568), Mr. Giblett estimated the loss from this source alone, weekly, on 6,000 beasts, 30,000 sheep, 5,000 calves, and 1,000 pigs, to be £14,000 He had there omitted the 15,000 lambs killed weekly during spring. "Of course," he added, "this loss must fall on the consumer." A further enhancement consisted in a practice, well known in the trade, of passing the meat nominally through successive hands, each requiring a percentage—a practice, in the event of a panic, likely to prove most expensive to the trade, and, consequently, to the consumer. But the most serious loss, and consequent cause of enhancement, whether we considered it in its direct deprivation of numerous families of their meat in a fresh and unobjectionable condition, or in its ultimate effect of rendering the whole meat supply dearer, was the loss of what was technically known as the offal, by which was included all the esculent parts of the animal except the two sides. He was informed the offal of 20 sheep would afford food, which, when fresh killed, was much sought after, for 100 individuals. When they considered the relation in which those customers stood to others, they found that they were dealing with little less than 250,000 persons, many of whom were dependent on that food for their weekly meal. Now, it was plain from the evidence, and admitted by the Report of the Select Committee, that this mass of food was lost to this metropolis, if they deprived it of its live meat markets, as this offal did not pay for being moved. The demand for it was greatest on Saturday night; the customers waited about the butchers' shops, and, if they could not be supplied at the time, they were informed at what hours the butcher intended to kill, when they again applied, and were able to procure it. By refusing his (Dr. Brewer's) Bill, the House would be cutting off the meat supply of thousands of families to whom

493
occasional animal food was a necessity, whilst, unfortunately, it was a rare luxury. The alternative plan, in place of that actually in operation, was a system of public slaughter-houses established at proper intervals throughout the metropolitan area. Paris proper, said a popular itinerary which had gone through many editions, contained 52,000 inhabited houses. He should think this statement was much under the mark. London, said a writer in the public Press, contained nearly 100,000 inhabited houses; that he know was ludicrously wrong. This metropolis in 1872 contained 417,348 inhabited houses, of which 243,697 had been built since 1849. The table was of new houses since 1849, 243,697; new streets, 6,277; new squares, 70; number of miles added, 1,111. The metropolis of 1873 was not the same with that of 1844. It was more extensive than 1844 was over the metropolis of 1664, which contained 65,000 houses; and they had no reason to believe it would be less like its former self in 1904 (30 years hence). The metropolis in 1844 consisted of about 142,908 inhabited houses; to which there had been subsequently added about 274,440, and 1,311 miles of streets, consisting of about 7,400 new streets. Paris proper contained 1,800,000 of population; this metropolis contained 3,500,000. Paris had three large and two smaller abattoirs. The foulness of their condition was attested by some of the French themselves, who said they could smell them for several miles distance. They constituted colonies of the largest, fiercest, and fattest rats seen in France. The population of slaughter-men were the wildest and the most dangerous to social tranquillity in Paris. What number of abattoirs would London require? The amount of animal food taken per head in London exceeded that of any other European capital, and the number of those in proportion to the population attending the meat shops was also greater. England, of all flesh, consumed per head 136 1bs., of which 78 67/100 1bs. was beef. France, of all flesh, consumed per head 46 3/10 1bs.; Prussia, 35½ 1bs.; South Italy, under 27 1bs. If nine square miles of inhabited houses would require at least one public slaughter-house, then the 117 square miles of the metropolis would exact 13 abattoirs. There must in the whole metropolis be 2,200 compartments, at
494
least, for retail butchers' meat. Proper railway communications and roads; access for 2,200 carts; lairage for 8,000 bullocks, 30,000 sheep, 15,000 calves, 17,000 lambs, and 2,000 pigs—these were some of the essentials for the requisite abattoirs. How a number of abattoirs within the 117 square miles, not more than from two to three miles from the shops of retail butchers throughout the metropolis, was to diminish the evil of driving cattle through its streets, it would be hard to show. But where were these public abattoirs? Where were they to be placed? Where were the funds to purchase the sites and construct the needful buildings to come from? One of his stoutest opponents had suggested that the butchers must pay for them; but was not that saying that the mass of consumers must, by enhancement of the price of meat, pay both the butcher's cost and his risk? Where, then, was the substitute for the two sources out of the three by which the metropolis had been hitherto supplied? The whisper was—the Metropolitan City Market. But where were the approaches; where the provision for the demands of trade and for the convenience of purchasers? No unprejudiced person in the City even assumed that their market was, or could be, by any outlay adequate; the radical defect being the approaches, which must ever seriously impair the general usefulness of this market. They had seen what a small excess of demand over supply could do, in any article of primal necessity, to create panic and raise its price three-fold in coals. Out off two out of the three sources of supply on which this metropolis depended for meat, and what was that but to enact that none but the wealthiest should be privileged to purchase food in the capital? It was merely trifling with the people of this metropolis to point to Edinburgh or some Continental capitals as examples to be followed. No parallel between Edinburgh and London could be drawn, save for the sake of contrast. In situation, easy access, the neighbourhood of its mountain pastures, in its nearness to the sea, in its streets, down which the breeze travelled accelerated by the narrowing of the valley by the Calton Hill, the Castle Hill and Arthur's Seat. Then, the mean temperature, the prevailing cool winds, its cattle hill-born and hill-reared, their size and compactness—the car case being cool and easily set—form

495
together a simple contrast in every particular to London and its neighbourhood. He did not desire to prove too much. He asked what his opponents were bound to show to the House in order to defeat the second reading of his Bill? Not that some other method than that into which demand had moulded the present means and method of supply was practicable—not even, to some minds, preferable—but that the present mode of conducting the trade was inconsistent with the health of the community, and that nothing short of its total abolition and suppression could satisfy these primal requirements; but that they had not shown and could not show, for the House had the verdict of the authority it deemed of highest credibility—namely, that of a Select Committee—a verdict based on evidence absolutely irrefragable, that the butcher's private slaughter-house was not a trade injurious to the health of the people. But, it was urged, there were accidents to which the trade was obnoxious, such as the tendency of other trades to gather round it which were objectionable or offensive, and that if the houses were not well kept they were noxious. But could either or both of these be valid reasons for abolishing a useful, if not an absolutely needful, business? Look for a moment at such a proposition. Were not the areas of private houses, if not well kept, even more dangerous to public health than slaughter-houses? Were not private and public stables, the builder's trade, the baker's, and a score of others? In 2,181 complaints lodged by the police there are 869 against bakers, 76 against confectioners, 26 against builders, 40 against dyers, 66 against eating-house keepers, 63 against engineers and founders, 23 against fishmongers, 76 against hotel-keepers, 53 against potters, and 83 against restaurants. In the local nuisances books, for one complaint against private slaughter-houses there were a score against private and public stables. Well, what would the House do? Would the House leave untouched the stables of the sons of wealth and luxury and deal only adversely with the meat shop of the humble sort? Let such a phrase remain in the region of clap-trap, let not their acts make the phrase a reality. He knew of no source of disease so fruitful of fatal consequences as that of interfering with the food supply of the
496
people, which precluded their obtaining fresh and wholesome meat, and drove them to tainted and deteriorated victuals. This was the Alpha and Omega of his advocacy of this cause. What was the history of the typhus fever epidemic here or elsewhere? Scarcity of whole some meat and the resort of the humble classes to half-decomposed food. That was the secret of the "pestilence that walketh in darkness, and of the sickness that destroyeth in the noon-day." The great nitrogenizer of the blood was good fresh wholesome animal food in climates like ours. The great efficient carbonizer was defective or deteriorated food which scarcity forced on the humbler classes. What was the alternative here proposed? Health, with easily cured disorder; or disease, with the tendency of slight maladies to degenerate into diphtheria and soft mortification of the palate and face. Look at the way in which those hideous ills were gaining ground on the Continent, especially the South, where for revenue far more than for sanitary motives these centralizing schemes were enforced. He would not enter here into the recent scientific investigations, nor into the proofs afforded by history, sacred and profane, of the unwisdom of our crusade against the slaughtering of beasts for human food in the cities of our Empire. He would not believe the City of London could be so ill-advised as to oppose his Bill, under the impression that thus the monopoly of the supply of the whole metropolis would be thrown into their hands. If such a whisper were credible, the sooner the hallucination were dispelled the better, for no Government would attempt so insufficient and unwise a scheme. That the attempted forcing of the dead meat market would enhance the price of meat in the country markets might, he thought, be admitted. The evidence before the Select Committee pointed that way; but let not the farmer or his friend rise at such a bait. The farmer's real interest would be found in the long run identified with that of the consumer and not with the speculator, who would pocket all the advantage of the panic he had created and fostered. The hon. Member for South Norfolk called this a retrograde policy. Well, he (Dr. Brewer) was not sure that in the face of the famine price in coals—brought on by that very irregularity of supply to which the conclusions

497
printed at the end of the evidence of the Select Committee drew the attention of the House as the result of abolishing the live meat market, as it existed now in the metropolis—a retracing of their steps would be unwise. He was not ashamed in the face of the great contrasts of gigantic fortunes with struggling mediocracy and pinching poverty; in the face of that weight of rating, which the rejection of his Bill would inevitably greatly increase; in face of the dearness of the first necessaries of life, which was causing the middle trading classes to stagger, and driving the vast body of professional men to their wits' end, to glide back from that uphill course of interfering with trade, which always ended in making supply more expensive, to the first principles of legislation, and to follow the advice of Jeremy Bentham—to let trade alone; to interfere only when the greatness of the abuse rendered it absolutely needful, and then no further than was absolutely needful. He moved that the Bill be now read a second time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Dr. Brewer.)
MR. F. S. POWELL,in moving, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, that his experience as a Sanitary Commissioner and as a member of the Sanitary Committee of the Paddington Vestry, had induced him to oppose the maintenance of private slaughter-houses in London, as proposed in this Bill. He thought that the success which had attended the abolition of private slaughterhouses in Glasgow and Edinburgh was a sufficient reason why the same example should be followed in London. The valuable and exhaustive Report of Dr. Thudichum to the Medical Department of the Privy Council in 1865 might be advantageously consulted, and should induce the House greatly to restrict the number of private slaughter-houses in London, and to place them under severe regulations. The Blue Books contained much evidence to the same effect from medical witnesses, who stated that the blood and other emanations corrupted the sewers, and that these private establishments were almost always a nuisance. They rendered the inspection of meat much more difficult, and whenever diseased meat went into consumption in
498
large quantities, the public health was prejudicially affected. The effect of the Act, which was to come into operation next year, was not to abolish private slaughter-houses altogether, but only to place them under stringent restrictions. All the large towns had special arrangements or by-laws by which these places were brought under sanitary control and constant supervision; but the metropolis had no such by-laws. The authority in London which would grant licences would be the magistrate, whereas the licensing authority ought also to be the authority that inspected. That was the recommendation of the Sanitary Commissioners. He trusted that Parliament would not abandon a Bill passed 30 years ago with due deliberation, and with ample notice to the interests concerned. What was now wanted was a public authority to construct public abattoirs in convenient localities in the metropolis, and to regulate these places. To pass the present Bill would be, however, to introduce a state of things that would be simply intolerable. The best course would be to withdraw the Bill, and submit the whole subject as res integra to a Select Committee. Although this might be said to be a vestry question, it was also a question of Imperial proportions. They lived in London, which was, in truth, a great kingdom with 3,500,000 inhabitants—a congestion of population such as had never existed on the surface of the globe. Great reforms had taken place in the sanitary condition of London. There was the Main Drainage, which was a great honour to those who designed and carried it out. There was a water supply which, considering the difficulties to be overcome, was admirable, and there were in every parish men labouring with valuable but obscure toil to mitigate the evils attendant on such vast accumulations of population. He asked the House not to take a retrograde step, as compared with the wisdom which had characterized the Legislation of that House and the action of those entrusted with power, by passing this Bill.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Francis Powell.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
MR. LOCKEobserved that by the present law, all the persons who had slaughter-houses in the metropolis would be compelled to shut up such places next year, and then the question would arise, where were we to get our supply of meat? One abattoir had been built, and that by the Corporation of the City of London, but it was no joke to build an abattoir. So expensive was this place, and so badly did it pay, that the City of London had never built another, and they had never been able to induce anyone else to build one. If it were really intended to shut up all the private slaughter-houses next year, some one ought to calculate how many abattoirs would be wanted, and what would be the expense of constructing them. But even if they were built, he doubted whether they would be of any benefit. In any case, the people who carried on this trade in private slaughter-houses said that no substitute had hitherto been provided. They had laid out their money upon this kind of property, and it was a folly to say that these establishments, which were kept clean, were more detrimental to public health than a mass of slaughter-houses jumbled up together and called an abattoir. In his opinion, London could not be sufficiently supplied from abattoirs. Why should not this Bill be read a second time and allowed to pass? It was useless to compare London with Paris on a subject of this kind. London was a meat-eating place; but what was Paris in comparison with London, and what was a Frenchman in comparison with an Englishman? The thing was absurd. With the ounces of meat that a Frenchman ate and the pounds that an Englishman ate there was no analogy between the two cities. In legislating for the metropolis they were legislating for a place which was different from every other. He had been in abattoirs and in slaughter-houses also. On the Home Circuit, he had had the honour of being one of the wine treasurers; and, in that capacity, had to look after the wine. The place they selected for their cellar at Kingston was at a butcher's, and next the slaughter-house, and he recollected very well that that cellar was perfectly free from any disagreeable smell. He had the satisfaction of seeing a calf slaughtered close to that cellar, and there was not the slightest inconvenience arising from it. The place was as clean
500
and nice as it was possible for anybody to conceive, and this was natural, because a respectable butcher could not afford to keep his meat close to a dirty slaughterhouse. The Bill simply proposed to continue the present private slaughterhouses, which caused no inconvenience, and he should support the second reading.
MR. M'COMBIEsaid, his hon. Friend had put the short-horn breed of cattle in a very high position. As a Scotchman and a breeder of Scotch cattle, he would beg to refer his hon. Friend to the weekly quotations in the London market, where the Scotch cattle were always placed at the top, and beg likewise to refer him to the decisions during the last six years of the Smithfield Club Show. He would find that four out of the six animals that gained the gold cup were Scotch cattle, and bred in Scotland, and not short-horns. If the private slaughterhouses were abolished, there would be a meat famine in London in hot weather, and the offal would be lost to the poorer classes. No doubt, if private slaughter-houses were a nuisance and prejudicial to health, they ought to be put down; but he could not agree in the statement that they were a nuisance. They were kept under the strict surveillance of the police, and from personal knowledge and inspection, he could say that they were most clean, and every attention was paid to their sanitary arrangement, with a constant supply of water running through them. Now, who were the parties most exposed to the influence of the slaughter-houses? It must be the butchers and their servants. Let any hon. Member visit the London cattle market on a Monday morning, and examine the bodily strength of the butchers and their servants, and they must come to the conclusion that there was no other class of tradesmen so vigorous, so strong, or so robust. So much, therefore, for the health of the men daily employed in the slaughterhouses. If they did away with the private slaughter-houses, two or three things must follow. They would drive the butchers to the dead meat market. London would be supplied with a very inferior article. He could speak as to this for the feeders in Scotland, and from his own personal experience. They would never think of sending the superior animals they forwarded at present,

501
as their size unfitted them for the dead market. They would be under the necessity of feeding smaller and inferior cattle. In warm weather there must be a famine of beef and mutton, and the offal would be lost to the poor, which was a very serious matter. In summer dead meat could not be sent from Aberdeen, and the inhabitants of London could not be supplied with the same quantity of meat as they were at present. On the great day, at the New Cattle Market, there were about 8,000 cattle, which, valued at £30 a-head, would amount to £240,000. 16,000 sheep, at £3 a-head, about £50,000; 500 calves, at £6 a-piece, £3,000; 100 pigs, about £5 a-piece, £500—total £293,500. The average sold at the New Cattle Market was about 4,000 bullocks, which, valued at £23, would amount to £92,000; 25,000 sheep, at about 50 s., £62,000 to £70,000; 500 calves, at £6, £3,000; 100 pigs, at £5, £500—total £157,500.
MR. CLARE READbelieved that if they abolished every private slaughterhouse in the metropolis there would be no more difference than now existed between the wholesale and retail price of meat, and if inspectors came to them in the country, and abolished pig-styes when near cottages, he thought the time had come when cow-houses and slaughterhouses should be done away with in the metropolis. Although it had been predicted otherwise, he was quite convinced that the removal of the cattle market from Smithfield to Islington had nothing to do with the present high price of meat. They had been told by the hon. Member who moved the second reading of this Bill that if they abolished the slaughter-houses in the metropolis it would be impossible to control and to regulate the supplies of meat from the country. He apprehended that there would be several large public slaughterhouses in London, one at Islington Market and others in convenient places. How was the fish market regulated? Was it not by telegraph? And of course it would be easier to get beasts from the country than to get fish from the sea, and yet London was always well supplied with fish. He was surprised at his hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen supporting the measure, and he contended that there would be no difficulty, as had been stated, in conveying the offal from the public slaughter-
502
houses to the districts where it was consumed by the poor. He believed it was desirable, both for the health of the community, humanity to the cattle, and the supply of good meat, that the trade in dead meat should be developed as much as possible, and as these private slaughter-houses tended to restrict it, he should offer it his opposition.
MR. BRUCEsaid, the very tenderness which had been shown in the Act of 1844 in dealing with vested interests had been used as an argument against putting it into force. Divesting the subject, however, of all exaggeration, it was certain that the Act would not necessarily destroy all the private slaughterhouses; for while it left untouched such places as were 40 feet from the public road and 50 feet from any inhabited house, a discretion was left in the hands of the magistrates, who could remit the penalty where it was clearly shown that the existence of any particular slaughterhouse was not injurious to the community. It was perfectly true that the Select Committee reported these houses as a rule as not unhealthy, but they also reported that their tendency was to attract trades such as tripe-boiling and tallow-chandling, which were injurious to health, and the Committee consequently recommended that private slaughter-houses should be got rid of and that they should be replaced by public establishments. This being so, the question was whether it would be wise, as the notice which had been given destroyed any claim for compensation on the part of vested interests, to throw away the chance of dealing with the question in the manner which would be most conducive to the public interest. The experience of Glasgow and other large towns where the system of public slaughter-houses had been adopted was to show that these establishments were carried on more economically than private slaughter-houses; that the animals were more cheaply killed, and that the result was to diminish, rather than to increase, the price of meat; and he did not see why the same might not be the case in the metropolis, because a great portion of the trade was carried on by men who never slaughtered at all and who would therefore be able to procure their supply just as well from a public as from a private slaughter-house. He was not prepared therefore under these circum-

503
stances to assent to the second reading of the Bill and to forego the advantages which they might fairly expect from the Act of 1844. Still, the subject of our meat supply was too important to be dealt with hastily, and if the hon. Member would withdraw his Bill and propose the appointment of a Select Committee, he would promise the support of the Government to that proposal.
MR. W. M. TORRENSsaid, that if he understood the right hon. Gentleman to state that the Government, after the inquiry, would take the initiative in the matter, he should advise his hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Dr. Brewer) to withdraw the Bill. This was not the first time he was impressed with the conviction that it was bad for Parliament to attempt to legislate through a telescope. It was most absurd to talk of the making of laws 20 or 30 years in advance. In his opinion, Parliament could never have intended these private slaughter-houses to be done away with without any public establishments having been provided in their stead; and therefore, as the Government had not taken any step towards making such a provision in this respect, the Bill had been introduced. He thought there could be no difficulty in the matter; and if the right hon. Gentleman would at once appoint the Committee, and would give them a pledge that before the end of the Session, or at all events before the penal law came into operation, he would introduce an official Bill on the subject, the measure now before the House need not be further proceeded with.
MR. BRUCEsaid, that if the proposed inquiry should lead to the conclusion that public slaughter-houses ought to be erected, it would be necessary to give the local authorities power to erect them, and it would be the duty of the Government to introduce a measure to confer such powers.
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, the only matter that could properly be referred to a Committee was the question how best to carry out the principle of the Act of 1844, which distinctly gave notice that private slaughter-houses should cease in the metropolis, and he considered that the inquiry should be strictly limited to that subject. The Committee should not attempt to reopen the great question of public versus private slaughter-houses; but an inquiry
504
should be made into the means by which during the next 12 months, provision might be made for the establishment of public slaughter-houses, and he thought that such an inquiry must be undertaken by the Government itself. He believed that if a system of public slaughterhouses were substituted for private ones the former would derive enormous advantage from being taken out of the restrictions of the Act, so that this nuisance would remain more unchecked than before.
MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he hoped the hon. Member for Colchester (Dr. Brewer) would assent to the proposal for a Committee, and that the result of subsequent legislation would prove beneficial to the inhabitants of the metropolis, whose interests, he reminded the House, were far more important than those of the particular classes involved. He trusted that the inquiry would not be limited in any respect, because at present there was a difference of opinion as to whether private slaughter-houses could, or could not be continued under the Act, some people affirming that they could, and others that they could not. It was highly desirable that the investigation should be followed by speedy legislation, which should be based upon the experience of the past 30 years.
DR. BREWERexpressed his readiness to withdraw the Bill on the understanding that the Committee might inquire into the whole subject.
MR. AUBERON HERBERTsaid, he trusted that whatever arrangement was ultimately arrived at, the slaughtering of cattle would be so carried on as to inflict the least possible pain on the animals to be killed. For this purpose, efficient inspection of slaughter-houses, public or private, should be provided. He thought that a strong argument in favour of abattoirs was that they afforded ample means of inspection on the part of the officers of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which were not given by any other system.
Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill withdrawn.

UNIVERSITY TESTS (DUBLIN) (No. 3) BILL—RESOLUTION.
MR. FAWCETTmoved to resolve—
"That this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee to consider the abolition of Tests in Trinity College and the University of Dublin."
Motion agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Fawcett.)
MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING: I rise to Order, Sir. I beg to call your attention to the hour (it was now 14 minutes to Six of the clock.)
MR. SPEAKER: The Question is that I do now leave the Chair.
MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING: I now, Sir, beg to call your attention to the hour. This is an opposed Motion, and it is past a quarter to 6 o'clock.
MR. SPEAKER: This being an opposed Motion there is no doubt that, according to the Orders of the House, the debate must stand adjourned till tomorrow.
And it being after a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till To-morrow.

NEW ZEALAND ROADS, &C. LOAN ACT (1870) AMENDMENT BILL.
On Motion of Mr. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN, Bill to amend "The New Zealand Roads, &c. Loan Act, 1870," ordered to be brought in by Mr. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN and Mr. BAXTER.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 116.]

VAGRANTS LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
On Motion of Mr. PEASE, Bill to amend an Act passed in the fifth year of the reign of His Majesty George the Fourth, chapter eighty-three, intituled "An Act for the punishment of Idle and Disorderly Persons and Rogues and Vagabonds in that part of Great Britain called England," and to repeal "The Vagrant Act Amendment Act, 1868," ordered to be brought in by Mr. PEASE and Mr. WHARTON.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 120.
House adjourned at ten minutes before Six o'clock.