I beg to move to leave out the words "save as hereinafter expressly provided."

This is a drafting Amendment, and does not in any way alter the intention of the Clause.

I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, after the word "used" ["place to be so used"], to insert the words

"and every person who shall exhibit for the purpose of public entertainment any such performing animal or bird."

This is put in in consultation with the Home Office, in order to meet an objection raised in Committee, with which I entirely agree, that the last four lines of the Clause are too wide and might sharass people with whom there is no intention of interfering.

I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: Leave out the words

"Provided always, that every person who shall receive money for the admission of the public on behalf of any other person to any such place shall be deemed to be the keeper, thereof."—[ Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy. ]

CLAUSE 2.—(Saving for horses and military tournaments.)

This Act shall not apply to the case of an animal or bird of a domestic nature which has not been previously trained for the purpose of such entertainment, nor to the case of horses which have been so trained, nor to the case of animals ordinarily used in military tournaments or exhibited by any person licensed to train and exhibit animals by any justice of the peace in such form as may be prescribed by a Secretary of State.

I beg to move to leave out the words "which have been so trained."

I move this at the request of the Home Office, who pointed out the legal difficulty of deciding whether a horse was trained or not, and this meets the objection of certain people.

I beg to second the Amendment.

What is the effect of this Amendment? As I read it, the effect is to take horses out of the Bill altogether, and I am not at all sure that that is the proper course to follow. I have seen horses brought on a stage, put on a revolving turntable, which revolves very fast, and made to gallop as hard as they can, at the risk, if they cease to move, of being hurled off the turntable and seriously damaged. The performance I have seen is not an edifying one, and I cannot think it is worthy of us to allow horses to be used for such performances as that. I have seen this sort of case—some entertainment which professes to put the Derby race on the stage, and in order to produce a realistic effect it is not sufficient, in the view of these entertainers, for the horse to gallop across the stage. They want something more realistic and what, I think, is exceedingly objectionable, and therefore they have this revolving platform, put the horses on to it, and by what methods they train them to keep on it I cannot conceive, but I can well believe they are not methods of kindness. What could be more repulsive to horses, for whom we all in this country profess and have the greatest admiration—horses which are the source of one of our greatest national sports, which are invaluable to us for breeding purposes for war and other purposes, and which are really dear to the British mind as representing a great national sport and a great national asset? Are we to allow horses to be, as I think, misused and abused, and turned to these extravagant performances at the risk of their lives, under conditions which nature never intended, in order to afford some momentary spasm of pleasure to the public, who, I am sure, could do very well without such performances? I do ask my hon. and gallant Friend to consider whether he will withdraw this Amendment, and put in some form of protection to prevent horses being subjected to such humiliating performances.

I entirely agree with what my hon. and learned Friend has just said in his eulogy of horses. I have not seen the performance to which he has referred, but either that performance is cruel or it is not. I do not know. If it is cruel, it can be dealt with under the ordinary law, and I cannot myself see any reason whatever for attempting to deal with that particular cruelty under a Bill of this sort. I think my hon. and learned Friend would be very much better employed if he would call the attention of the society which seeks to prevent cruelty to animals to the performance to which he has referred, and if he can convince them that it involves cruelty, I have not the slightest doubt a stop will be put to it.

Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman assure the House that the humane societies have any power of visiting these people when they are training the horses in private?

This Amendment was put in to meet what I think was a legitimate objection. I would like to see horses right out of it, but we must have a certain amount of give-and-take, and I think ordinary circus performances are not objectionable. In view of the difficulty pointed out by the officials in differentiating, I hope the hon. and learned Member will allow this Amendment to go through.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move to leave out the words

"or exhibited by any person licensed to train and exhibit animals by any justice of the peace in such form as may be prescribed by a Secretary of State."

This takes out of the Bill the licensing provision, which I put in in Committee at the request of an hon. Friend. In Committee it was rather sprung on us. The Amendment was put down only a day or two before. I have not had time really to consult those best qualified to speak of the effect of licences and Home Office Regulations in cases of this sort, and I gave way, making clear, of course, that I would consult the Home Office on this and on other matters. The Home Office are against the licensing system. They point out that it is very wide, that it would be possible to go to a magistrate in some remote part of the country and get a licence from him which would hold good all over the kingdoms, and the Home Office would have difficulty in framing Regulations. In brief, they are against it. Of course, there is another objection, and that is that in similar cases, I think, licensing has been proved to be a failure. I have only to quote the case of the traffic in worn-out horses. Another case was that of the child acrobat, which is very analogous to what we have in view in this Bill. They tried a licensing system there, and it was found to be so easily evaded that eventually they had to bring the child acrobat under the Children Act. I have a letter here from a Mr. Wilson, who was for twenty years an inspector of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. He was very highly thought of, and, I believe, a very reliable man in every way. For twenty years he was engaged to check cruelty by inspection. His statement has been sent to every hon. Member. He speaks very strongly of the great difficulty of getting admission to see the training. The inspector gets known very quickly, and the moment he appears scouts herald his approach. [An HON. MEMBER: "Rubbish!"] I have only this gentleman's evidence. He says:

"The longer my experience, the more I became convinced that no amount of so-called inspection would stop any cruelty that existed in the course of the training."

He goes on to quote the case of a certain training quarters which, by arrangement, put a board outside their premises stating:

"These training quarters are let on the distinct understanding that they shall be open to inspection by officers of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals."

This is what actually happened. He says:

"I paid a number of visits weekly to those quarters, but never succeeded in reaching any of the rooms upstairs before my presence had been known to the trainers.… My experience of all other places was precisely the same, and for this reason my humble opinion is that no system of licensing could possibly afford the animals the protection desired or expected from any such scheme."

There is a good deal more very precise statement from his experience. I consulted with my friends who are supporting this Bill both inside the House and the many self-sacrificing, earnest people outside, and rather than admit a system of licensing and inspection, which we feel would only stereotype the evils we are trying to do away with, we would withdraw the whole Bill, and I beg the support of hon. Members for this Amendment.

I beg to second the Amendment. I was on the Committee, and heard all the discussion that took place, and I know the reason why the alteration in the Bill was made. On later reflection and consideration, I feel that if the thing is wrong, it is entirely wrong, and ought to be stopped. No form of licensing could prevent the cruelty, if cruelty exists, and to attempt licensing would require an enormous amount of inspection to see that the training was conducted in such a way that no cruelty existed. I quite agree that a system of licensing to prevent cruelty, which we conscientiously believe does exist, would be a mere farce, and lead to more complications than anything else.

I am of opinion that the Bill defeats its own ends. The promoters of this Amendment desire to remove performing animals from the stage, whether it be a circus or other place of entertainment. They might succeed. I submit, however, were they to do so they would not remove the cruelty which they and all of us wish to see removed. What would be the result? These animals would be trained, as they have been hitherto trained, in quarters in London and elsewhere, and exported to the Continent, where, I submit, the conditions obtaining are not so sympathetic as they are in this country. Anybody with any experience of Continental races—no, I will not say that, but the Latin races— Knows perfectly well that they do not as a general rule view cruelty to animals in the same light as we ourselves do. I speak with some knowledge of the subject, as I have been secretary of an important branch abroad of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and I trust in my small way I have been able to prevent cruelty taking place.

There is one great test as to whether or not cruelty does take place. That test is the acid test of public opinion—that alone! If public opinion in this country, whether it be behind the footlights, or infront of them, realises that cruelty takes place, I am convinced as an Englishman that my brother Englishmen and Englishwomen will come together to defeat it. They have done so in the past and they will do so in the future. In the next place every Member of the House has been circularised with ex-parte statements made in this paper I hold in my hand. I do not—

Those observations, I think, will be more appropriate to the Third Reading of the Bill. The present Amendment is solely on the question of licensing.

I will turn, Mr. Speaker, to the Amendment relating to licensing. In respect to that, I do not think that withdrawing the system of licences, and reverting to the Bill as it originally stood, would do any good, because licences afford some safeguards, and without licences there are none. By the Bill it is proposed to inflict great and grievous hardship on an extremely deserving class. Further, the proposed Amendment casts ridicule on the Bill. Most of us when small derived the greatest possible entertainment from watching a Punch and Judy show. Dog Toby was an integral incident in the performance. As I read the Bill, if he bites the nose of Punch, or sits up and begs, he is a performing animal under the terms of this Bill. Could anything be more ridiculous? If on the stage a dog, say, walks across the footlights or possibly licks the hand of his supposed owner, he is not contravening the law, but suppose he shakes a paw or performs the smallest trick, he comes into the terms of the Act and becomes a performing animal. For these various reasons I abject to the proposal of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite.

I have been rather puzzled by the speech to which we have just listened. The hon. and gallant Member says that he wants licences because he does not think it is desirable that there should be no provision for the training and exhibition of animals—

No, no!

Well, so I understood the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

I want licensing rather than no licensing at all.

Therefore the hon. and gallant Gentleman wants the Bill in its original form, with licences. He admits that malpractices may take place under present conditions and that something ought to be done; therefore he admits the case of the promoters of the Bill. On the other hand he takes up an entirely inconsistent attitude. My impression of his speech is that he thinks without this licensing system you might just as well have no Bill at all. But a person, if necessary, can go to a magistrate, who may be an animal trainer himself, and he can frank performances throughout the whole of the country. That makes the position so much worse than now, because it will allay public anxiety on the matter and will probably lead to a great deal more cruelty. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut.-Colonel James) says that if you do away with these performances in England, the result will be you will have more cruelty, for the people will train the animals in England so as to exhibit them abroad, and abroad they have a far lower standard in this matter than public opinion insists upon in this country.

What reason, however, is there for thinking that an animal-trainer, if not allowed to exhibit his animals in this country, is going to take the trouble to come over here from the Continent and train them? We know that under the present law these training establishments nominally are open to inspection. We know also that that inspection is an absolute farce. Anyhow, it is childish to suggest that the cruel foreign trainer is going to be tempted to come from the country where there is no inspection, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests, and train the animals here. Greater cruelty, it is said, may be inflicted because there is not that feeling on the Continent that there is here. There is nothing in that argument, because if a man is callous he will naturally go on training animals under those conditions where there is no inspection. Therefore I think the whole of that argument falls to the ground. I feel it is most necessary that if you have a Bill at all you should do away with this provision about licensing. But that really is a Second Reading point. I shall most certainly vote in favour of the Amendment, because I want the Bill to be effective.

The way this Amendment has been put forward, and the terms in which it has been moved and supported suggest that the supporters of the Bill desire to abolish these entertainments. The Bill was before Committee upstairs and analysed there. Yet those supporting it now come along and seek to amend their own Bill. Quite clearly in the Committee itself they were satisfied with the Bill as it is. What has happened since then? A great number of well-meaning people outside, quite conscientiously perhaps, but quite illogically, have been administering the stick to the hon. and gallant Gentleman behind me, and that is the reason why now he has moved this Amendment. At least there is somebody outside who apparently knows something about the training of wild animals. If the suggestion is carried it really will absolutely abolish the work of the large body of people who, I protest, are not cruel in the sense in which this circular that has been put out suggests.

We have had the evidence of an inspector for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals put forward on this point. Those of us who represent in some sense the persons engaged in the music hall profession could have got similar inspectors who would have said quite the contrary. My position is that here is a Bill levelling gross and infamous charges against a body of men whose livelihood is at stake, and who love animals just as much as we do. The Amendment must be taken in conjunction with Clause 1. By this Amendment you obliterate the whole business entirely, and I hope the House will seriously consider this point. I never knew a case in this House where, after a Bill coming from the Committee upstairs, we found hon. Members coming here and proposing vital Amendments on the Report stage. I think that is treating the House with contempt. The Bill came here as an agreed Bill, and Members of the Committee now seek to vitally amend their own Bill. If this Amendment is carried, it will be a totally different Bill. That is unfair, and I hope the House will reject the Amendment.

The hon. And gallant Member (Lieut.-Colonel Walter Guinness) spoke of something as a Second Reading point. May I point out that we never had an opportunity of discussing this Bill on the Second Reading, because it was smuggled through after 11 o'clock, when hon. Members who usually object to private Bills were not present? Not having been on the Committee which considered this measure, I came here knowing nothing of the Bill, and I wanted to hear the arguments in order to convince me as to its merits. All I have got from the hon. and gallant Member (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) is that he has wobbled very considerably on his own Bill, and I have had no guidance from the Home Office in regard to this Bill or from any other authority. The attitude of hon. Members supporting this Bill seems to me to be the old and vicious attitude of the late Lord Coleridge, who said that if the use of a thing cannot be separated from its abuse, then the use must be prevented. Under that doctrine you could get rid of religion, patriotism—which has been defined as the last resort of the scoundrel—and you could get rid of almost everything. Because you may have cruelty you must not trust public opinion apparently or the magistrates of the country to issue licences, in fact you can trust no one, and you must get rid of the whole of these performances. I distrust that argument altogether. We have been told by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), who on this occasion claims to put forward the views of the Home Office which up to now has offered us no guidance, that this Department does not want licences. Why? On a similar subject the Board of Agriculture tells us that the system of appointing inspectors is very effective, and I cannot understand why the Home Office should adopt a different attitude in regard to these matters.

The Board of Agriculture does not do any licensing. They have inspectors, which is quite a different thing altogether.

I know that the Home Office have inspectors, but the hon. and gallant Member says he does not trust the inspectors of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals because they cannot get there. If that is so then they are not very clever men. I shall wait for the Third Reading speeches in order to hear more about this matter. I think the Bill will be better if it permits licences, and I shall support this system of magistrates granting licences, reserving my right to vote for or against the Bill on the Third Reading.

I hope the House will agree to leave out these words. If they stand, the Bill becomes absolutely futile and useless, and you might just as well save us the trouble of going on any further, and all our labours will have been utterly fruitless in regard to this Bill. It is perfectly true that if the words stand part of the Bill unlimited licences will be granted subject to no conditions, and all existing objections to these performances which are strongly felt in every part of the House will cease to be met in any way whatever. Let us see what these words mean? First of all, the licence has to be granted by any Justice of the Peace. Far be it from me to say that the body of Justices of the Peace, of whom I form one, are not a most admirable and excellent body for dispensing justice upon subjects with which they are accustomed to deal, but speaking for myself and other hon. Members who are justices of the peace, I should be very sorry to say that we ought to grant such licences without expert advice and without hearing the pros and cons of each particular case. I suggest that under this Bill any Justice of the Peace sitting in his private room can have an application from a manager saying: "Grant me a licence for exhibiting cats or dogs," and he can grant it according to the form in which these words stand.

There is something more than that. There are some Justices of the Peace who differ from hon. Members, and who have extremely strong views about the licensing of performances of this sort, and there is no reason under the Bill why every man who wants to exhibit animals should not go to one or two of those justices and simply say, "Grant me a licence," and he would get it. The Bill would become a perfect absurdity and a farce. That is not all. As this Clause is drafted it tells the Justice of the Peace that he may grant the licence in such form as may be prescribed by the Home Secretary. The Secretary of State has no right to lay down the conditions under which the licence is to be granted. He has no right to lay down any provision for an investigation, which, I think, is extremely important. So that you have it broadly, upon an application made without evidence or investigation, that any Justice of the Peace may grant a licence. The thing is quite unthinkable. If we are to have a licence, might I suggest that those hon. Members who favour a licensing system should agree that it should be granted by a competent body in an effective form. I should suggest the Quarter Sessions, where you have a bench of magistrates with a trained chairman, who would not be likely to grant a licence without careful consideration. Furthermore, if we had such a licensing body it would be exceedingly important that the Home Secretary should be able to prescribe the conditions under which they should be granted, and that he should be able to prescribe that they should not grant them except after due investigation. With safeguards of that sort, I think a licence may be possible, but in its present form it is quite futile and renders the Bill absurd.

A very important principle is raised regarding the procedure of this House in the way that this Amendment is presented. There has been a Committee upstairs. The whole proceedings in this House now depend upon the Standing Committees, and it is necessary that we should very carefully guard our procedure. In the Committee upstairs every Member has the whole of the evidence on the case before him.

There is no evidence.

I mean that every Member has the opportunity of hearing such evidence as the promoters of the Bill can give in Committee. They hear the whole case stated, pro and con.

It is only in Select Committees that you can take evidence. There is no evidence given before the Standing Committees.

I do not think that touches my point. It is the custom of the House to place upon a Standing Com- mittee both those who support and those who are known to oppose the Bill. Both the promoters and the opposers of the Bill have an opportunity of making their case, and every Member of the Committee hears the case, pro and con. Therefore, the decision of the Committee is given by Members who know the case. The decision given here, on Report, is one given by a House which cannot possibly know the case. Therefore, the Standing Committee is a most important stage. It is a most serious matter in regard to the procedure of this House that the promoters of a Bill should, upstairs in Committee, come to an agreement and thereby succeed in getting their Bill through Committee and then come down here and ask the House, of whom a very small minority can be conversant with the pros and cons, to reverse that decision. I was not on the Committee, and, on principle, I am not prepared, for one, without having the means of thoroughly understanding the Measure, to reverse an agreement come to in Committee.

My right hon. Friend is a little mistaken in his statement as to what takes place in Committee. He commenced by saying that the Committee consisted of Members who were in favour and Members who were against, the Bill. That is incorrect. The Standing Committees are appointed at the comencement of the Session, and they consist of 50 or 60 Members. They are appointed before any Bill is sent to them. When a particular Bill is sent to a Standing Committee, 15 Members are added. Usually, something between 20 and 25 Members attend, and the idea that this House is to be guided by what has taken place in Standing Committee is subversive of the whole idea of representative, government.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) seems to be labouring under a misapprehension that somehow or other an agreement was arrived at in Committee with respect to this Clause. That is not quite correct, because the opponents put their case as strongly as they possibly could in favour of the rejection of the Bill, and, if my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) did: accept this Amendment, he did so labouring under a misapprehension as to the effect and consequence of these particular words. Since he has had time to reflect upon the Amendment, he realises the nature and gravity of it. The training of animals may go on in some foreign country over which we have no jurisdiction and no right of inspection, and there may be the maximum amount of cruelty. Then, the trainer may come to this country to exhibit those animals. There is abundant evidence that in the training of animals of all kinds there is a form of cruelty which is most revolting. The same is true with regard to their exhibition. I will only give one illustration which came under my own observation many years ago. It was one of the most revolting things that I have known in my life. There were some performing lions, and in the centre of the show was a great fire in which iron bars were being heated for use when the trainer entered the lions' cage. I now realise in my mature years that the lions had been tormented to look as ferocious as possible in order to attract the public. The trainer, to give spectacular effect to the whole show, called for the iron bars to frighten the lions. Is that an exhibition that any honest English gentleman wants to see given in this country? Personally, I do not desire to subject any animal to treatment of that character.

Did you see any marks on the animals?

I was comparatively young at the time, and I cannot say. It must be 20 or 25 years ago, and I confess that at the time I thought it was a marvellous scene. When I come to reflect upon it in my later years, I think it was a most revolting scene. A public taste that is gratified by exhibitions of this kind is revolting, and the sooner it is eradicated the better. I shall support the deletion of these words.

I do not know how many hon. Members sat on the Committee upstairs, but I have heard the evidence of people who are engaged in this particular work and from what they have said and from their appearance, it has never struck me that they are persons of brutal instincts. It is not desirable, therefore, that Members of this House, however good their intentions, should listen to fairy stories with regard to this matter. Everyone has been told, of course, that people who train ferocious beasts of the forest find it necessary to use hot irons in the course of the training, but I think it is very probable that a more intimate acquaintance with what goes on behind the scenes would show the trainer pushing the lion aside with a broom as his only weapon when it is desired to clean out the cage. It is suggested that it would be dangerous to allow anybody seeking a license to get it from the nearest and most convenient Justice of the Peace. Surely hon. Members have a mighty idea of their own countrymen's honour if they imagine that there are any magistrates who would lend themselves to this sort of thing. The idea that the application should be made to any local Justice of the Peace passes my comprehension. I think the Home Secretary alone should be empowered to grant the licence, after being made acquainted with all the facts and with the sort of animal to be trained, as well as with the safeguards in respect of inquiry and inspection. No hon. Member would care to look at any show where there was reason to believe cruelty had been used towards the animals. I went into one only the other evening. I do not want to advertise the place, but it was a show where seals were performing in a tank. They were diving into it and two young ladies also dived into it with them. It was really a clean, excellent show, and I subsequently inspected the receptacles in which these seals are conveyed about the country and found them all that could be desired. I understand that these animals have three months in the sea at Blackpool, or some similar place, and, altogether, I do not think I should mind being a seal myself.

1.0 P.M.

It is not fair for the Committee, with all the good intentions in the world, to run the risk of doing an injustice to thousands of decent-minded people whose livelihood depends, not upon their cruelty in training the creatures under their control, but on their exercising sound judgment and a kindly nature. There is an old saying that where fear is, love is never seen. I do not think that fear is so often an adjunct to the training of these animals as some people imagine. There has been talk of elephants being controlled by the application of red-hot pokers. I have always thought that an elephant was an animal with a very reten- tive memory, and I for one would not care to be the man who had used the red-hot poker, lest on some future occasion I should meet that animal. I do not think the Committee have given due consideration to this Bill. They have not heard evidence which could have been forthcoming from people who are concerned in this matter. Hon. Members should not be so ready to lend an ear to the hysterical screechings of people, many of whom show far more sympathy for animals than for human beings who risk their lives in Ireland and elsewhere. I want to see a little more consistency displayed. I would be as ready as anyone to stop a show which is cruel, or which is calculated to brutalise the minds of the people, but I am not going to listen to the sentiments and fads of all sorts of Tom Noddies, and I do suggest that the men and women who train these animals are entitled to generous treatment at the hands of hon. Members of this House, and to a fair consideration of their rights as citizens until something is proved against them. May I suggest that the Bill should not be further proceeded with now, but that the Committee should sit again and take evidence on both sides? I am willing to put an end to brutalising shows wherever they may be found, but I am confident that many of these performing animals have been trained with both affection and patience, and, therefore, I appeal to hon. Members not to be stampeded on this matter, but to agree to refer the whole question back to the Committee, so that any reform which may be brought about shall be just and fair, and not a result of stupid, pannicky legislation which can only reflect discredit on anyone engaged in it.

I think we have heard some very good sound common sense from the hon. Member who last addressed the House. I am not ready to oppose this Bill. The promoters of it have agreed that licences should be issued with the idea of preventing the exercise of cruelty in the training of animals and therefore I should prefer that the Bill, as now presented to us, should be accepted and that the Amendment should be rejected. A good many speakers have addressed themselves to the subject in a way that suggests that the adoption of a licensing system would not prevent cruelty. I have no doubt the House has sufficient evidence before it to decide on that question, but I personally shall vote in favour of having licences because I hope that their issue may prevent the possibility of cruelty. Everyone of us, I would imagine, would desire that. It is going a great deal too far to say that no animal is to be trained. It is perfectly wonderful what can be done by training. I do not believe that trainers are universally cruel. Men do take an interest in the animals they train, and a system of licensing would enable them to train animals in a kind and proper manner, and thus earn their livelihood. I shall therefore vote in favour of licensing remaining in the Bill. I am sorry no form of licence has been introduced into the measure, as it might have been possible to make some valuable suggestions in that regard, but I think it would be very ill-advised to make it possible for any animal to be trained anywhere.

I propose to support the Amendment for several reasons. One of my principal reasons has not been referred to by any hon. Member who has spoken, but I hope it will be considered. So far as I can see, unless this Amendment is carried, there is nothing in the Bill which will prevent an exhibitor from importing animals which have been cruelly trained abroad; and it was admitted by one hon. Member opposite who opposed the Amendment that they were cruelly trained abroad. The hon. and gallant Member for Bromley (Lieut.-Colonel James) said that these questions are sooner or later decided by public opinion. I do not know whether his experience has been the same as mine, but I know that a good many hon. Members have had the same experience. I have received hundreds of letters, not only from my own constituents, but from people in other parts of the country, asking me to support the Bill as now amended, and I have not received a single letter of protest except from people who have a commercial interest in the matter.

I rise to support the Amendment. I think it will be admitted in all quarters of the House that if this Amendment is not carried and a licensing system is adopted it will destroy the whole effect that we hope to obtain by this Bill. It is clear that, if a magistrate is entitled to grant a licence to a trainer, he is bound to grant a licence if it is applied for unless he has some reason to believe that the applicant is not a proper person to have the licence. Therefore, these licences will be issued automatically. If a magistrate takes the attitude that he will not issue a licence, the applicant will be entitled to go to the superior Court and compel him to issue the licence unless he can show cause why it should not be issued.

He can go to another magistrate.

Yes. Moreover, these licences would not be subject to review. When once issued a licence would hold good for any length of time, and would not come under the review of any responsible body, so that you would set up a state of affairs more dangerous than that which exists now. A man would be able to exhibit a notice that he was licensed by a justice of the peace to train animals, and therefore could not possibly be accused of any cruelty. Those hon. Members who are opposed to the Bill should vote against the Bill as a whole on Third Reading, and should not vote for this destructive provision, which, if retained in the Bill, will destroy its whole effect.

I shall certainly support this Amendment, because I think that the Bill would be more or less nugatory if the Amendment were not carried. I have the greatest respect for the justices of the peace of this country. They are honourable men, do their work admirably, and are very carefully selected. But I do say that the large number of justices of the peace in this country must include a certain percentage who are in favour of these performances in which animals are exhibited, and people interested in these performances would naturally go to those justices who were favourable to their shows, and would get a licence to train their animals. No one is more whole-heartedly in favour than I am of doing away with all possible cruelty in the training of animals, and I feel that it is necessary not to allow any animals to perform under the conditions which would obtain were this Amendment not carried. I think it is the only way of strengthening the Bill.

If this had been a sensible Bill I should have voted for the Amendment. I agree with the hon. And gallant Member opposite (Colonel P. Williams) that licensing is to be deprecated, but as I read the Bill it would have the effect of prohibiting the Waterloo Cup—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—of prohibiting all coursing, and of prohibiting what is a very favourite sport in the North of England, namely, dog racing, against which there is not a word to be said. I have taken part in it myself, and have seen it constantly, and I say without hesitation that the Northerner loves his dog, and especially a racing dog. All this is going to be stopped by this Bill. If the Bill does go through, as I sincerely hope it will not, there will be just a loop- hole to keep going these great sports which I have mentioned. I believe it to be doubtful whether you could have a sheep dog trial, which is also a big sporting event and a very useful event in the North—

May I point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that domestic animals are not included in the Bill?

I do not agree. As I read the Bill, domestic animals, unless they have been previously trained, are excluded. These animals have been previously trained.

By the previous Amendment those words have been left out.

As I understand it, all these animals are included because they have been previously trained. I conclude, therefore, that the Bill is not a sensible Bill, but I shall vote against the Amendment in case other people do not agree with me, because in that case there is just a loophole to keep these great sports going.

May I just in a sentence speak on behalf of the Amendment, for a reason which is perhaps rather different from any that has yet been given? To my mind animals are given to us for companionship or for shooting purposes or for purposes such as those for which the sheep dog is used. If you are going to have them taught and exhibited, you are bound to have cruelty in one or two ways sooner or later—either in the exhibition or in the training. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I say sooner or later. Does any hon. Member deny that there is cruelty in the exhibition? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I can remember one case which would have convinced any hon. Member in any part of the House if he had been present, as I was, at Olympia within the last 18 months, and had seen little dogs, terrified, jumping from the top of that great building on to a trapeze 30, 40, or 50 feet below, and had seen their palpitating fear as, first of all, they were taken up to that dizzy eminence, and then as they were awaiting the word of command at which they were to jump. Some were blindfolded and wrapped up in sacks. Anyone who saw that performance would have no doubt that sooner or later these performances either lead to cruelty in the training or in the exhibition. Animals, after all, exhibit the great qualities of courage, loyalty, faithfulness and trust, and they are not given to us to make our bread and butter out of for business reasons in showing them in performances. I shall back up this Bill as heartily as I can.

But for the last speaker I should not have intervened. He made a general charge based upon a personal experience at Olympia. I can never remember being without an animal of some sort. I have had dogs ever since I can remember, and I have had dogs who on their own initiative have learned

tricks which would have made them very popular with no cruelty on the part of myself or any of my family. The hon. and gallant Gentleman makes a general charge against all performing animals.

What I said was that, sooner or later, if you have the right to exhibit and to train performing animals, here or there you will get cases of cruelty, and I will do anything to stop it.

I question that, because I am sure a stranger would not get the dog to do the same thing that I got him to do. You can train both dogs and horses by kindness to do certain things which are a joy to those who witness them, and even the animals themselves take a pride in them. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman had been at Liverpool last Saturday when there was a great horse parade, he would have seen that the animals themselves seemed to have some intuition and some pride in doing what the drivers wanted them to do. I protest, simply because horses and dogs have been taught to do tricks which are pleasurable to those who behold them without being illtreated, against making a general charge that sooner or later cruelty will be imposed upon them.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 69; Noes, 60.

I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words, "nor to the use of animals for the purposes of sport."

The object of inserting this Amendment is to make sure that there shall be no interference with sheep dog trials or the Waterloo Cup, or any of those forms of sport which depend upon the training of animals in their natural faculty. Unless we have such an Amendment it may be found necessary for the owner of sheep dogs to get a licence from a magistrate before he would be entitled to show them. This would not in any way legalise cruel sports, such as cock fighting, which are prevented under the law as it now stands, but it would prevent this Bill being quoted to interfere with any sports which are now law.

Does the hon. and gallant Member consider that sheep dog trials would be included in sports? I do not think so.

I beg to second the Amendment. This Bill is not to be a code for the prevention of cruelty to animals, but is intended only, and will be effective, to prevent the use of animals for what we may call non-natural purposes. The use of dogs for sheep trials, or any other similar purpose, might possibly be endangered in some way by this Bill, unless it is made plain in the words of the Amendment.

This Amendment shows the inconsistency and absurdity of the whole thing. The whole Bill teems with inconsistencies, and I suggest that the promoters might withdraw it, and let us get a proper consideration of the question and a Bill which would be acceptable to the ordinary common sense of the public outside.

I am much obliged to the hon. and gallant Member and the hon. and learned Member who have moved and seconded the Amendment, which I welcome, as it tends to make the Bill clear. In view of the last Division, however, I wish to withdraw the Bill, if my hon. and learned Friend will agree with me on the matter.

I do not know after the announcement made by the hon. and gallant Member whether there is any object in proceeding with further discussion; but I should like to say with regard to the Amendment now before the House that I thoroughly agree with what has been said by my hon. Friend opposite (Captain O'Grady). The Amendment shows the straits to which the promoters of the Bill are put. I object to this Amendment extremely. It would be resented by all sportsmen, because it casts a slur on the whole of the performing animal trade and performing animal entertainments. It makes out, on such evidence as satisfies the promoters, that the whole of that great industry of recreation for the public is tainted by cruelty, and now the promoters by an Amendment propose to say: "It is quite true that cruelty goes on, but we will excuse it if it is in the interests of sport." That is the logical inference to be drawn from this proposal. That should be resented in the interests of sport. If there is real cruelty involved in training retrievers and in exhibiting their powers for money, as is often done, or if there is cruelty in the whippet races, and it is cruelty with which this House should interfere, why should that be exempted while perfectly innocent entertainments at the circus are to be stopped by legislation? It shows the whole absurdity to which the promoters of the Bill are reduced. I welcome very much the announcement made by, I suppose, the chief promoter of the Bill, and as in that case we probably shall not have any opportunity of making any statement upon the Third Reading, which, I suppose, will not be proposed, I should like to say, not having been here at the Second Reading, that I rejoice at the withdrawal of the Bill, because I think it is the most imbecile proposal that has ever been put before the House.

Shall we have any opportunity, Mr. Speaker, of saying anything when the proposal is made for the withdrawal of the Bill, because some of us think that if the Bill is to be withdrawn it would be very desirable to get a promise from the Home Secretary to set up a Committee to examine the whole question? I believe we all desire that, but I do not know whether we shall have any opportunity of urging the Home Secretary to do that.

If the present Amendment is withdrawn, and the promoters of the Bill move, "That the further consideration of the Bill be adjourned," it would be in order to do what the hon. and learned Member suggests.

I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, "That the further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."

I hope that the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member (Sir J. Butcher) will be accepted by the Home Secretary. The opponents of the Bill have wrecked it, as they intended to do, but they would welcome an inquiry being set up. I congratulate them upon their triumph. I have done my best to get the Bill through, and they have done their best to wreck it, and they have succeeded. I bear no grudge against them; they have fought quite fairly, but I do wish to make one point clear, because the accusation is made by an hon. and gallant Member below the Gangway that we acted unfairly in accepting an Amendment in Committee and then moving to delete it afterwards. In Committee it was rather sprung upon us by being put down late. I make no complaint.

It was on the Paper.

That is so, but we made it clear at the time that we should have to consult the Home Office on this and other points, and this was one of the points that the Home Office advisers pointed out would be impossible in operation if the Bill was to be of any use. I do not propose to bring forward now the voluminous evidence pointing to the great cruelties especially in the training of animals. I do not want to detain the House further on this matter, but there is no doubt about it the evidence which has been laid before a Committee of Inquiry is important evidence and weighty evidence, and I really think that opinion outside this House is sufficiently strong to demand such an inquiry, and I think the Government would be wise to accede to that demand. The promoters of the Bill them selves welcome it. As just one example of why we should have an inquiry, one of the witnesses put forward by the opponents, Mr. Bostock, a wellknown and, I believe, much respected animal trainer, who I am sure would not inflict cruelty on any animal—

On a point of Order. Is it open to the hon. Member to make general remarks on the Bill? I understood he moved to postpone further consideration of the Bill, and he is now making a speech on the general principle.

It is not in order on the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate to make a speech appropriate to the Third Reading, but it is quite legitimate to ask for the attitude of the Government and whether they will accept an inquiry.

I have not seen this procedure adopted hitherto, and since the Division I have not had time to consult those better acquainted with the Rules.

I would just like in a few words to point out what is the position of the Home Office. I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) did not wish to misrepresent the position. He has had no consultation with the Home Office. He did have consultation with my secretary, who did what he could to help him in drafting troubles. The Home Office does not support the Bill. The position of the Home Office is that we have not got the information. We also knew perfectly well, as I should have had to point out if there were a Third Reading, that the Bill as it stands is perfectly hopeless. You could not carry out any one of the single things required. I was asked by my hon. and learned Friend (Sir J. Butcher) to set up a Departmental Committee.

A Select Committee.

A Select Committee is for the House to set up, not the Home Office. If the House set up a Select Committee, the Home Office would do what it could to help it.

I think my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds (Captain O'Grady) who, I think, is the chief opponent of this Bill, should very carefully consider whether it would be wise to sanction the proposal that further consideration be adjourned. I am myself assured, after what has fallen from the Home Secretary, it would make a laughing stock of this House to pass legislation of this sort, and therefore, while I will not take any action, of course, myself, I think my hon. Friend opposite should insist on the Motion for the Third Reading being made.

I do not know this form of procedure, and it lands me in some difficulty. The Motion is that the Bill be postponed for further consideration. The Home Secretary frankly says the Bill is hopeless as it stands. There is some suggestion of a Select Committee. I was never against a committee of inquiry. In fact, I offered it on behalf of the people opposed to this Bill, and I never had any communication yea or nay. I do not want the danger to be constantly existing of this Bill coming up repeatedly, and I think the Bill ought to be withdrawn.

If I may alter my Motion, I beg leave to withdraw the Bill.

It is a mere matter of procedure one way or the other. To adjourn the further consideration is a more general way of doing the same thing. If the hon. and gallant Member now withdraws his Motion that further consideration be adjourned, I should put the question on the Third Reading.

Might I ask the Home Secretary just to make the position clear? I understand he is willing to grant a Select Committee if the House agree. A private Member could not propose to set up a Select Committee. That rests with the Government. Might I ask the Home Secretary if he will give us a promise that he will propose a Select Committee for the consideration of this matter?

We had better take that on the Third Reading.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

I would like to ask if it will be competent to move an Amendment to the effect that the Bill should not be read the Third time until the Select Committee has reported thereon?

That would be the same thing as the House declining to read the Bill the Third time. It would be simpler to negative the Third Reading.

Might I ask the Home Secretary to give an answer to the question I put, whether he will propose to set up a Select Committee, and leave it to the House to say whether a Select Committee should be appointed or not?

I cannot possibly give any pledge of that kind. I have said the Home Office will do all it can to help, but I cannot pledge myself definitely to anything now. If the hon. Members who are really concerned in this matter will consult together, and if, as the result of their consultation, they think a Select Committee should be appointed, then, of course, it will be set up. On the other hand, if they think some other form of inquiry be better, the Home Office will do its best to assist.

None of us on this side of the House or the other wish to proceed on false testimony. If we can have some Committee set up whereby we can get the definite evidence which can be relied upon by both sides, then if the evidence will support our side so much the better, and if it did not, we shall have to let the whole thing drop.

I would like to say, before the Question is put, that I did an injustice to an hon. Member of this House. I wish to withdraw it, and to say the hon. Member for Islington (Mr. Raper) did reply to me by letter.

May I say I also replied to the hon. Member.

Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and negatived.

I beg to move in paragraph (ii), after the word "corn" ["relating to corn"], to insert the words "which at the date of the contract, bargain, sale, or dealing is not within the United Kingdom or to corn."

This is just to rectify an error in drafting.

I beg to second the Amendment. I had put down a similar Amendment, but this covers the same point.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, after paragraph (ii), to insert a new paragraph— This is a further proviso to follow that which was inserted when the Bill was in Committee. If the House will allow me to say a few words on the merits of the two provisos together I shall make the position clearer. As the House knows, the agricultural interests of the country are strongly in favour of the Bill. On the other hand, the corn trade of the country at the great ports, which is concerned with four-fifths of the total consumption in this country and with a very large quantity of other grain imported, has been all through opposed to the Bill on the ground that it affects transactions in a business way to the prejudice of those concerned. I addressed the House on the Second Reading of the Bill, and the House unanimously gave a Second Reading to it. In order to deal with that position I suggested to those who were promoting the Bill that an extension of the exceptions, in order to take out of the purview of the Bill those transactions which take place in regard to the actual importation of corn into the country and so far as the imported corn is dealt with as imported corn, might meet the difficulties of the majority of those who are opposing the Bill and at the same time not be inconsistent with the general object of the Bill, which is to simplify all transactions in this country. The promoters of the Bill most considerately and sympathetically acceded to the representations which I made to them and adopted paragraph (ii) as it stands in the Bill.

That proviso deals in the main with corn which is imported in bulk and it provides that as long as the corn is in the warehouse to which it first goes after importation, it shall be treated as not yet having come into the scope of the Bill, but that as soon as it goes away from its first warehouse it will cease to bear the character of imported corn and will be properly regarded as, so to speak, part of the common stock of corn of the United Kingdom, and therefore within the general principle on which the Bill is based. There is, in addition, another type of case which is not quite covered. A certain amount of corn imported, perhaps more of corn intended for feeding stuffs for cattle, is actually delivered to the consumer in the original bags. I believe it is quite a small proportion, but I do not dogmatise on the point. If contracts for the sale of imported corn in what one can call the original bags are excluded from the purview of the Act, the operation of the Amendment would be really beneficial from the point of view of saving money by obviating the necessity of rehandling, and anyhow it would not in any way impair the main object of the Bill, which is to deal with transactions taking place in this country in order to prevent a great multiplicity of different measures. I think that the trade as a whole in all probability, while still disliking the Bill and still anxious to oppose the Bill, might in the end be content to let the Bill pass if these two Amendments, that which was incorporated in the Bill in Committee and that which I now propose, were adopted.

The Amendment would allow corn resold in the original bags to stand outside the scope of the Bill. I have had a discussion on the matter with my hon. Friend who is responsible for the Bill as its promoter in this House, and I think he sees that the Amendment is one which it is worth while to accept, if the House is satisfied that the result will be that the opposition of the corn trade will be conciliated. On that footing I ask him and the House to accept it. The small addition of the words "subject only to re-bagging in replacement of damaged bags" is necessary for this reason: where corn is imported it often happens that a small percentage of the bags of a consignment are damaged and that the contents have to be re-bagged in the ship's hold. It is to meet that particular case that these words are added. I have had one or two suggestions made to me that possibly unscrupulous dealers may want to get round the Act by pretending that bags were the original bags when they were not. I brush that aside as a suggestion of no weight. The standing of the corn merchants of this country is too high, and, apart from that, it would involve no advantage, and therefore I brush that possibility aside. The House is possibly alive to the fact that the quantities contained in the bags imported into this country vary considerably according to the nature of the material. Wheat is generally in 140 lb. bags, barley in 130 lb. bags, and oats in 105 lb. bags. To have to recalculate contracts based on those rates and turn them into cwts. would cause serious inconvenience. I trust the House will accept this very imperfect statement by me as to the necessities of the importing trade in the matter. I am not an expert in that trade, but I have had many cases in the Courts connected with it, and I have a second-hand knowledge of it. I know enough to recognise the fact that the merchants will be greatly in convenienced—

What is the inconvenience?

I do not profess to know the details any more than my hon. and learned Friend, but I understand the effect both in regard to the recalculation of rates and the re-bagging of the material involves the trade in great inconvenience. In these technical matters the House has to rely very largely upon representations made by the trades concerned. A long telegram was sent yesterday to Members of the House at considerable expense in regard to this matter, and I am in a position to say quite definitely that the Federation of Corn Merchants of Liverpool, the Corn Trade Association of London, and other corn trades associations of the country have definitely formed the opinion that the Bill without this protecting Clause, and possibly even with it, will seriously affect their trade and cause great inconvenience. I am sure the House would not wish to disregard representations of this kind made with authority on behalf of one of our greatest trades. I therefore ask the House to say it is desirable to pass this Amendment and make this very modest exception to the general principle.

2.0 P.M.

I beg to second the Amendment. I am not sure whether I can go so far as my hon. Friend the mover has gone in his sanguine hope that this will make the Bill acceptable to those whose interests it so greatly affects. I have the greatest doubts as to the wisdom of passing the Bill, and I shall have something to say upon the Third Reading, especially when I shall have had an opportunity of seeing the attitude of those in favour of the Bill towards this Amendment. As far as the Amendment goes, it will help to make the Bill less objectionable to the community whose interests have been referred to. The hon. Member (Mr. Cautley) asked what was the inconvenience caused by the Bill. Perhaps it has not occurred to him that if a cargo of grain comes into this country in bags of a particular denomination, the effect of the Bill is that it will be only permissible to sell that grain in complements of 112 lbs. It will therefore be necessary to re-bag the entire of the cargo. The whole industry will be dislocated. It will be necessary to provide millions of new bags of a different size and capacity to those generally in use. It is not merely a case of dislocation in the office, of difficulties as to calculations, and the transformation of one weight into another. It is a practical difficulty involving the necessity of providing a large quantity of fresh material in the shape of bags for the carrying on of the trade. At several of the ports arrangements have been made by which the weight of the sack has been fixed in order to fit it to the strength of the stevedores' men. If this Amendment is not accepted, it will be necessary to revise the whole of these arrangements which have been arrived at in many ports between the stevedores and the merchants.

This does not apply to the ports.

I fully appreciate that it does not apply to any grain until after it has left the warehouse into which it was originally imported, but I am not sure that my hon. Friends supporting the Bill fully appreciate the meaning of the Bill. I shall have something more to say about that, and about its general effect, on the Third Reading. At this stage, so far as the question of bags is concerned, I support my hon. Friend the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mr. Leslie Scott), and I hope the promoters of the Bill will accept his Amendment in the spirit in which it has been moved, and see if we cannot make the Bill workable.

It is rather a pity that the Mover of this Amendment, before he made his opening speech, did not look through the proceedings of the Committee upstairs. He will find that the Committee had something better to go upon than his opinion as to the attitude of the corn trade, because they had present a member of the corn trade, one of the hon. Members for Manchester, who took some trouble to tell the Committee what was required and what was not required by that trade. I do not think the telegram which was sent yester- day, or anything said here to-day, shows there is any unanimous or strong feeling on the part of a large majority of the corn trade against this Bill. It is quite certain there is an agitation by some of them, but it does not follow that there is any general or strong feeling against the proposals. The object of the promoters of the Bill is to prevent farmers being swindled by the differences in weights, and by not understanding the weights and measures.

It is very hard to swindle a farmer.

I shall not dispute with the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London—whose experience of farmers is no doubt valuable—as to his opinion on the intelligence of the farming community. That, however, was the idea of bringing in the Bill, and there is something more in it. It is not only the farmers, but the general public whom we desire to see protected. What is going to happen under this Amendment? It was proposed in Committee, and these particular words were struck out, because, in the first place, there is very little corn which comes into the country in bags. Those who knew on the Committee were agreed on that. The Mover of this Amendment said the greater part of what came in was corn sold for feeding stuffs.

What I did say was that the cases where imported corn was sold to the consumer in the original bags, I thought, were mostly cases of sales of feeding stuffs.

If we are going to protect people who buy feeding stuffs and small quantities of corn, dealers who are not absolutely in the trade, from the variations in weights, we ought not to allow these bags, which will not be in the standard weights, to be used after they have once been in the English warehouse. It is not the case that these bags last a long time. They wear out in a very short time. Another danger of the Amendment is that they are to be allowed to be replaced. I do not suppose many ships arrive with cargoes of corn in bags, but if there were, a considerable portion of them would be damaged and destroyed, and each time a bag is damaged there would have to be a new one. How is the purchaser to know, when he is buying corn, whether or not it has been re- bagged? It is a most strained Amendment to try and get in some sort of evasion of the principles of the Bill, which are that corn in this country, when once it has been delivered and accepted here, should be dealt in with weights known to the farmer, to the miller, to the public, and to everybody throughout the country. I hope the House will reject the Amendment, as the Committee did.

On behalf of the promoters, the last thing we want to interfere with is the corn trade, but I thought the hon. and learned Member (Mr. L. Scott), in moving the Amendment, spoke with less than his usual convincing force in showing us that the corn trade will suffer any damage at all. If the Bill is thoroughly understood, there is nothing to prevent the delivery by the original bags from the store in which the corn is first landed. If the corn is on the high seas, a contract can be made, and that contract stands good, and delivery can be made under it in any sort of bags they please. The point was raised in Committee that the contract might inadvertently be made when the parties believed the ship was at sea, the ship having as a fact arrived a day or two before, and that there might be a chance under the Bill of that contract being void by reason of the corn having been landed. Therefore, the promoters met the corn trade, handsomely and well, by inserting a provision that the Bill should not apply to any contract

"for or relating to corn imported into the United Kingdom so long as the same shall remain in the warehouse, or store, or shed where the same shall have been first stored on importation."

Therefore, the dealers in the corn trade, having got their foreign corn landed and in store, can then send it to any part of the country for delivery and deliver it in the very bags it is in and send it where they like in the original bags and by its original weights. I suggest to my hon. and learned Friend who moved the Amendment, who is a sensible person, that the corn trade are suffering no inconvenience and no injury of any sort or kind. We have been in communication "with them, and they have not troubled to point out to us where is the injury, and I challenge my hon. and learned Friend to show us. It is true that if they move it from the warehouse into a second warehouse and then sell, they become subject to the ordinary law, but why should they not? That does not prevent them delivering in the original bags, and it does not make them have to re-bag the corn. If, in removing it, they have to weigh the sacks, they have got the weights and the bags, and they can make delivery in those bags to fulfil any contract they have made. It is trifling with this House to tell us that any injury is being done to the corn trade. If there were. I should be the first to admit it and to meet them. Suppose this Amendment is passed, the effect will be to make this Bill absolutely nugatory and inapplicable to foreign corn at all. They will go on selling this stuff in every market by various odd weights, and we shall be in the same state of confusion as we are now. The quarter differs whether the corn comes from the Argentine, or from Canada, or from the United States, or from Russia, or from India. There is a different weight practically for each quarter of corn and each different kind of corn, and that is intolerable. There is the further point that is very little made of, and it is a point that I have laid great stress on in supporting this Bill from the first. The weights that now exist, particularly for peas and beans, where we have a sack of 19 stone, and for wheat, where we have a sack of 18 stone, are far too big for a man to carry. I have known myself of injury being done. The only really heavy work in farming is carrying corn, and I have known injury done to growing men—carters are generally youngish men—

The hon. Member is discussing the general principle of the Bill and not the Amendment. If I allowed him to go on, I should open the door to other Members.

Certainly, Sir. The reason I mention that is to show the desirability of having this measure applied to all corn that goes into internal circulation.

I would not say or do anything that would injure the general principles of the Bill as it stands, and I must confess that I have been at a loss to understand the agitation that has arisen on the part of the corn importers. I can quite see the danger of the Amend- ment, the mischief that it would produce and the confusion that would naturally follow, and I have been trying to discover the real cause of the trouble to the corn importer, and I am bound to confess that, with the exception of a few telegrams and one or two letters of a general character, I have had no actual proof given, either written or verbal, as to how it can be possible to injure the position of the stevedore or the workman employed by the corn importers if this Bill becomes law. The Bill does not interfere with the purchasing power, the bargaining power, the contracts made in any country, or the bringing into our ports of the cargoes of grain, whether in bulk or in bags. The only point to which I objected in Committee was that as to "original bags." That was, and still is, a very stupid provision, and I, of course, was against it, and am against it still. After all, a little bit of practical experience is worth a good deal of theoretical knowledge, and I have seen Karachi, Indian, and Australian wheat coming in cargoes in bulk. No sane importer, or buyer, or shipowner, so far as I know, would think of sending a cargo of wheat in bags in preference to bulk unless there is necessity. It is much easier to load and discharge in bulk, because when it arrives in the country in bulk there is only the machine to be put into the hatch, and there is practically no labour required; but when it comes in bags it has to be handled in the port of loading very carefully by the stevedores and has to be carried away, which involves an immense amount of labour. You will, of course, very often see a huge cargo made up partly in bags and partly in bulk. They have to use the bags to safe guard the cargo from shifting and losing the ship altogether. However, I fail to see how the Bill can seriously damage the interests of the corn importer. I have tried, but have failed, to find out, and my own practical knowledge does not guide me to any extent in showing where it will be dangerous, or how it will affect arrangements at our ports. If I am wrong, then the people who ought to have informed us are wrong in not giving better information. Anyhow, I would rather have the Bill as it is, than introduce any element into it that would be a dangerous factor, and probably destroy all the other good points in the Bill. Therefore, I cannot see my way at the present moment to support the Amendment.

This Amendment, as the hon. and learned Member for the Exchange Division (Mr. L. Scott) has said, is an extension of the Amendment made in Committee to meet the Liverpool corn trade. I, personally, and several other supporters of the Bill, have been trying to meet the corn trade for a considerable time. We have asked for suggestions, but they have not found it possible to answer in any shape or form, and they find it easier at the last moment to send out to Members a flood of telegrams, costing about 6s. each, or about £180 in all, when they might have settled the whole thing for two or three twopenny stamps. I have just mentioned this to show that we have done our best to try to meet the objections raised. I fully recognise that the corn trade is a very important trade. We do not want to do anything to interfere with that vast trade, which is certainly greater than the internal agricultural corn trade, and I am prepared to go any length to try to prove to them that we are not wishing to put any difficulties in their way, but are trying to get over this trouble. What I would like to suggest is that we should for the moment accept this Amendment. I do not think it is going to help them. I think they will find it a futile Amendment, but I suggest it can be inserted in the Bill now, because time is an essential factor, and it can then be considered again in another place, and if, as I think, by that time it has been proved to the corn trade that it is not really helpful, it can then be removed. The point is not a very large one, but we do want to show this very important body, which really deserves very great consideration on our part, that in trying to help the agriculturists in this country, we have no desire to injure their great trade.

What does my hon. Friend exactly mean by "proved to the corn trade"? Will it rest with them to say whether they are satisfied or not?

I imagine it will be quite possible to get a definite opinion from the recognised representatives of the trade. I do not think there is any difficulty in that, but if my hon. Friend prefers that we should refuse to accept the Amendment—

I am not at all anxious that the Amendment should be refused, but I do not want the Amendment to be accepted with some sort of understanding that they should be free to debate its removal in another place, when we have given the Third Reading under some misapprehension.

Well, I am certain that there is no intention on the part of anybody to do other than what is fair towards the corn trade, but it is a small matter. If on further consideration—although those concerned have had a good deal of time already—they are convinced that the provision as it stands needs amendment then we shall raise no objection.

Having been more or less intimately connected with the corn trade for a long time, I have been waiting anxiously to hear definitely what is the objection of the corn trade to this Bill. I anxiously listened to what was said from the Benches opposite, and if the position really was that these bags that come into the country were to be rendered useless and that the corn must be re-bagged into 112 lbs., I think there would be considerable substance in the objections raised. If I understand it, however, there is no necessity for the bags to be 112 lbs. or any specific size. That being the case it simply remains a question of calculation. There has always been the question of calculation in the corn trade, because, as has been pointed out, the importations have not come in in one specific size, and the bags have not been one size, but have varied considerably. It is just as easy for a man in the corn trade mentally to calculate the difference in these various quantities and sizes as some Members here calculate that there are 20s. in the £. I quite agree that it may be necessary at the beginning of things to have a table of calculations, but men in the business can tell what the proposals are in a moment. If there is any real reason to apprehend difficulty the proposal that has just been made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman responsible for the Bill, which is a reasonable one, would give us time to make inquiry.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 5.—(Adaptation of Acts and awards providing for payment based on price of imperial bushels or other measures.)

1. Where under the provisions of any Act or award any payments are to be calculated on the price or value of an imperial bushel of wheat, barley, or oats, those provisions shall have effect as if the payment were to be calculated on the price or value of sixty imperial pounds of wheat, fifty imperial pounds of barley, or thirty-nine imperial pounds of oats, as the case may be.

2. Where under the provisions of any Act or award any payments are to be calculated on the price or value of any measure of wheat, barley, or oats other than the imperial bushel, the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries may certify what number of imperial pounds ought, having regard to the foregoing provisions of this Section, to be substituted for that other measure, and thereupon those provisions shall have effect as if the payment were to be calculated on the price or value of the number of imperial pounds so certified.

I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "award" ["award any payments"], to insert the words "or other instrument."

I understand this Amendment is accepted on behalf of the Government. Therefore, it is not necessary to go into the matter, beyond saying it is merely to safeguard those cases where there may be contracts or agreements made on a sliding scale.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In Sub-section (2), after the word "award" ["award any payments"], insert the words "or other instrument."—[ Mr. Townley. ]

CLAUSE 6.—(Interpretation.)

In this Act the expression "corn" shall include wheat, barley, oats, rye, maize and the flour, meal and bran derived therefrom, and any mixture thereof, and this Act shall apply to dried peas, dried beans, linseed and potatoes, and to the seed of grass, clover, vetches, swedes, field turnips, rape, field cabbages, field kale, field kohl-rabi, mangels, beet and sugar-beet, flax, and sainfoin in like manner as it applies to corn.

Amendment made: After the word "shall" ["the expression 'corn' shall include "] insert the words "where the context permits."—[ Mr. Lane-Fox. ]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[ Mr. Lane-Fox. ]

I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."

The Bill has a considerable effect upon the corn trade, and I am not at all satisfied that the Amendments which have been introduced make the matter really satisfactory. I appreciate, as I have already said, the reason for introducing the Bill. I can understand that the farming interest desire that their sales shall be at a constant rate and quantity which would enable them to calculate their prices satisfactorily. If this Bill had been framed to deal with English corn I should have supported it whole-heartedly. If it had been framed to deal with "ascertained goods" I should have supported it whole-heartedly, but it is framed in a form which I think leaves it in a very obscure condition.

I should like to ask hon. Members supporting the Bill whether their Bill will affect such transactions as those to which I have referred. The Bill makes null and void any agreement dealing with corn which from the commencement of this Act is made otherwise than by cwt. It is also provided that the Act shall not apply to any contract, bargain, sale or dealing. that contract to be made null and void, and gives the opportunity to any person, a small person, or any person coming into the chain of contracts to repudiate his bargain if the market falls, by some pretended plea that the contract did not refer to grain which, at the date of the contract, was not within the United Kingdom. Nobody knows what is going to be provided. It is known to be foreign grain. It may be in the second store, on the high seas, or in the first store.

My contention is that this House is not in the position to say what is the meaning of this provision. Will it be an answer, when somebody says the contract is null and void, for the vendor to say that the corn was not within the United Kingdom at the time. Supposing the corn has been mixed in a transit shed with wheat or maize which has been in the country some time. Then it becomes an indistinguishable mixture, and nobody can unmix it. At a time when the country is in a parlous condition the supporters of this measure, in order to achieve what is no doubt an admirable object, are dislocating an important industry by passing a Bill the effect of which is exceedingly obscure. This measure will leave the corn trade in great doubt as to what it really does permit and what it does not permit. I say nothing about the inconvenience which will follow, in spite of the Amendments which have been introduced. One hon. Member opposite said he had been listening for some information as to the inconvenience which will result from this measure, but the hon. and learned Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mr. Leslie Scott) has already pointed out that surely it ought to be sufficient to say that the corn industry is against the measure.

I think that the industry might have been more active in opposing this Bill, but I would like to point out that the Bill only came out of Committee about three days ago, and until it was circulated yesterday nobody was aware of the Amendments which have been moved to-day. I have been at some trouble communicating not only by letter, but by other means with the persons interested in this subject, and possibly there has been some misunderstanding on some points. Possibly this may be due to some mistake on my part or on the part of my correspondents. We had just 24 hours to ask the opinion of the corn industry as to important Amendments introduced into this Bill which at all times was obscure, and now is still more obscure. Having regard to the fact that it is intended to deal with English corn as well as foreign corn, we are going to dislocate an industry without any guidance from legal or commercial authorities as to the effect of these Amendments. I am sorry that neither of the Law Officers of the Crown are present. I do not complain of that, but I think it would have been better if they had been here in order that we might address questions to them. I Jo not know whether there is any other so-called lawyer here except myself, but I suggest to the House that if this Bill is passed we shall have put upon the Statute Book a measure which is really incomprehensible, and will not achieve the object in view. It will dislocate an important industry and it will not be to the credit of the House to pass a Bill like this without consultation with industry as to the form in which this Bill now stands. Although I have taken this course without consultation with my hon. Friends I hope I shall receive their support in favour of my Amendment.

I beg to second the Amendment, although I am not yet convinced that I shall support my hon. Friend in the Lobby. I think this Bill requires further consideration. This Bill was sent to a Committee upstairs, but from what I have heard in the Debate it seems to be taken for granted that the farmers of this country are in favour of this measure. I am not sure about that, and I doubt whether it is going to be an advantage to the individual farmer. I do not know that we are going to have things any cheaper through altering our weights and measures. It may be right to standardise the quarter of corn, whether it is barley or whatever it may be, but I do not think it is a very practical suggestion to make that restriction.

Most of us who deal in these things when we go to market, know what weight we are selling or what weight we are buying. Many of us find that it is necessary to put an entirely different weight into our sacks. I want to know if should be permitted to put 240 lbs. into my sack if it will hold it? If this measure simply provided that you must state the weight of the corn you are selling without any limitation, I think there would be a good deal to be said for it, but to lay down that the only measure is to be one cwt. is rather odd. If you are going to buy foreign stocks in cwts. that will only be made an excuse for making farmers pay a little more. I think we ought to get some clear definition as to the real object for making it only a one cwt. measure, and I want to know whether it is illegal to put in more than one cwt. when you are selling corn? I do think that it is a point upon which we ought to have a clear definition before the House lets the Bill go further. Legislation should not be passed through this House without every Member understanding it and knowing fully what it is about.

This Bill seems to me to be one effecting very considerable changes in the measures and the usages of traders with regard to measures, after insufficient consideration. I suppose a good many other Members have received very urgent telegrams on the subject this morning. The country has been so little prepared for the Bill that people are now at the last moment obliged to send telegrams to their Members in order to call their attention to the very serious changes which are proposed in what seems to be a simple, innocent, and innocuous Bill related to one industry only. A good many years ago I had a good deal to do with all these proposals for changes in our weights and measures, and, owing to the enormous penetration of habit and custom among the English people, we found the difficulty is almost insuperable. I suppose that we shall one day have the decimal coinage introduced by a private Member's Bill relating to one particular industry. After passing a Bill after very little discussion upstairs and an absolutely cursory consideration downstairs, we shall wake up one morning to find that some unimportant Bill has introduced the decimal coinage. Alterations in measures and the usages of traders in regard to the measures of the country should not be effected by a private Member's Bill after the slight consideration that it is possible to give it on a Friday afternoon. We know how much consideration it was likely to get upstairs. With great difficulty the promoters get some of their friends to assist in forming a quorum, and these friends, having obliged by forming a quorum, are not likely to oppose the Bill.

That was not the case with this Bill.

I am only giving it as an instance of what may be done by a Bill of this sort. I contend that we ought to give a further opportunity to those constituents who have already communicated with us in very urgent terms by telegram this morning, when for the first time they became aware of the serious provisions of the Bill, and who have urged a very solemn protest against it.

Had I any special desire to defeat a Bill, I should have sent a telegram to every Member on the day on which the Bill was to be considered. The object of the Amendment is not to investigate the Bill, but to defeat it. I should be perfectly prepared to concede any investigation, but this Bill has been before the country for many months. We received innumerable communications from various sources, and we thought that in Committee we had placated any opposition by conceding certain alterations that were suggested by a Member of the Committee who himself is connected with the corn trade. I must confess that I am absolutely astounded at the attitude of the hon. and gallant Member for the Stamford and Rutland Division (Lieut.-Colonel Willoughby). He is a member of the Committee, and we heard none of these protests upstairs.

I was not a member of the Committee.

I beg the hon. and gallant Member's pardon. If that be the case, I withdraw, and I am very sorry, but I was under the impression that the hon. and gallant Member was a member of the Standing Committee. My astonishment, however, is not lessened by the fact that he represents an agricultural constituency, and that every agricultural organisation throughout the country is in favour of the Bill. He says that as a farmer he is opposed to it. Of course, on personal grounds there is no reason why he should not be opposed to it, but the ground which he has expressed here seems to me to be a fear that at some future time the cost will be increased owing to the necessity of changing bags or something of that kind. Bags do not last for ever. My idea is that the Bill would bring uniformity where there is no uniformity in the method of sale. The Bill does not come into operation immediately, and there will be an opportunity to amend the weights now used in the corn trade. The Bill will be to the advantage of everybody concerned. I am not especially interested in it except in one particular. I am interested to bring down the weights to something like a uniform weight that a man can carry. It has been already said this morning that much illness and many accidents have resulted where young and growing men in the agricultural industry have been called upon to lift, say, sacks of beans. It is well to put an end to that sort of thing. Under the Bill, we shall get the weight made up in something like a reasonable manner, and we shall not hear so much of rupture among the agricultural community as we do at the present time. It is on those grounds, more than any other, that I am in favour of the Bill. My feeling is that it will bring about a much needed reform in the weights that men are called upon to lift, and upon those grounds I hope that the House will not be misled by the Amendment, the object of which is not to consider whether the Bill be a good or a bad Bill, but to defeat the Bill altogether.

May I say a few words as an ordinary Member interested in the Bill from the ordinary point of view, and also as one representing a constituency in Scotland which grows a good deal of corn and oats. The Bill was thoroughly discussed in April last. It was introduced as long ago as last year, and it had been before the country for a considerable period before then. Its principles have been a good deal discussed throughout the country for years, and the Agricultural Policy Committee of the Reconstruction Sub-Committee investigated the subject. Indeed, one of the objections urged on the Second Reading of the Bill was that the matter ought to go before a Committee to be investigated, and the answer thereupon given was that that had already been done, and that the Agricultural Reconstruction Committee had declared that the need for uniformity had long been recognised by the leaders of agricultural thought. Then, on the Second Reading, we had a long discussion. I do not know at what hour it took place, but it was certainly not after 11 o'clock. The discussion went on for a considerable time. We had before us all the evidence for and against the Bill as put forward by different bodies throughout the United Kingdom, and I am convinced that those who voted for the measure did so with a full knowledge of all the facts. For people now to complain that Parliament is rushing legislation through on the matter in a hurry is not justifiable. If they were not aware of what has been going on they are themselves to blame. They cannot be alive to their own interests, and I do not think we ought to bother about the representations they are making at this very late hour. I represent a Scottish constituency. The National Union of Farmers of Scotland are, I believe, in favour of the Bill, and I hope, seeing that it has been thoroughly discussed, the Bill will no longer be held up.

The opposition to this Bill at the present stage is based on the ground that the corn merchants have not had an opportunity to properly discuss it. I happen to be Vice-Chairman of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, which unanimously supported the Bill when it had it before it. The measure is also supported by the Farmers' Union and by many other agricultural bodies, and if they have had an opportunity of discussing it, surely the corn factors have had an equal opportunity. I anticipate that an interesting picture pamphlet referring to this Bill has been received by most Members of this House—although many of the copies were seen unopened in the waste paper basket. I cannot understand why the promoters of the Bill have been unable to get the opinion of the corn factors upon it. Personally, I have had considerable correspondence upon it with a corn factor in a very large way of business. It has occupied a good deal of our time, and a few days ago he wrote me regretting that he had been unable to make me see his line of argument, but he added that he quite appreciated the fact that I had taken the matter into full consideration. How can it be said that there has not been sufficient opportunity for discussing this Bill. Yet that appears to be the only reason on which the Third Reading is being opposed. We were told by the hon. Gentleman who moved the rejection of the Bill in a speech crammed full of argument that people under present conditions do not know exactly what they are buying when they purchase feeding stuffs. I know the difficulty in regard to weight. I myself find great difficulty in finding out the weight of a sack of barley meal. That is one of the things which the merchants who sell try to conceal. This Act will sweep all that on one side. It may cause a certain amount of temporary inconvenience to corn factors, as indeed all changes are bound to do to someone, but I maintain that the trade has had ample opportunity of putting its case before the House and has no right now to send a scare telegram to hon. Members. It must have cost a great deal of money, but that will no doubt be welcome to the Postmaster-General.

3.0 P.M.

I should like to say that the tenour of the telegram is quite incorrect. The matter has had full discussion. This Bill will work for uniformity in the agricultural interest of this country. I cannot see that there is any practical disadvantage attaching to it, and, therefore, I cannot understand why a telegram should have been sent in this way in order to wreck a most useful Bill.

I beg to join in the appeal which has been made to postpone this Bill. I am connected with the corn trade myself and have been inundated with correspondence asking me to do my utmost to prevent this Bill passing into law without further consideration. The corn trade had no idea that directly after the Bill had passed through Committee it would come before this House. I gather that the telegram which I have received has also been sent to other hon. Members, and I need not therefore read it. Undoubtedly there is a very strong feeling against the Bill on the part of the corn trade. We should bear in mind it is one of the most important trades in this country and its views are therefore deserving of consideration before a Measure like this is passed into law. Men who have spent their lives in the corn trade are strongly opposed to the Bill, and I hope that this House will allow the matter to be postponed in order that those who wish to bring their views before it, and who were not on the Committee upstairs, may have an opportunity of doing so. I may point out that it is not proposed that the Bill should come into force until the 1st January, 1923. There is therefore a period of nearly two years in front of us for further consideration, and there is no reason why this Bill should be forced into law. I hope the Third Reading will be postponed.

As one of the promoters of the Bill, I am naturally anxious it should find its way on to the Statute Book. I very much regret that the Minister of Agriculture in Committee upstairs refused to accept an Amendment to Clause 4 which, to my mind, as it stands, is not intelligible, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman's representative to-day will allow me to call his attention to that point, and to suggest that when the Bill goes to another place this matter should be carefully looked into, as otherwise I fear the Clause will not be properly construed. What ought to be done is to treat the sale as having been made at the market town where the corn was in fact sold.

This Bill has been thoroughly discussed in the country. It was introduced in the last Session of this Parliament by the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. David Davies), and was circulated by him to every authority which was connected with farming or with the corn trade or had anything to do with land. It was before everyone for over a year, until, owing to the luck of the ballot, it was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Lane-Fox). It received the unanimous approval of the National Farmers' Union and their various branches pretty well all over the country, and the approval equally of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, the Central Landowners' Association, the Surveyors' Institution, the Land Agents' Society, and the Agricultural and Seed Trades Association of the United Kingdom, as well as of the Agricultural Policy Sub-Committee. The corn trade have had it before them for more than a year. It has been discussed by them, and the corn trade of Liverpool, particularly, have been in communication with every member of the Agricultural Committee, although they thought so little of the Amendments proposed that, when two or three of that Committee got into communication with them, they did not reply for more than six weeks, while when the Bill came before the Committee not one Member—not even the hon. and learned Member for the Exchange Division (Mr. L. Scott)—appeared to represent them.

The Bill, really, is extremely necessary. The quarter of wheat to-day may be either 480 lbs., 496 lbs., 500 lbs., 504 lbs., or even 588 lbs. The case of oats is worse. A quarter of oats in different parts of the country may be 304, 312, 320, 330, 336, 378, 380, 384, 488, or 528 lbs. That is perfectly intolerable, and this Bill will put an end to it. Another point which was made by an hon. Member opposite is that we are anxious to see lesser weights put on to our men. A sack of beans to-day weighs 19 stone, and it is too heavy a weight for men to carry on their backs. Injury has been sustained by men having these heavy weights to carry. We feel sure that the tendency of this Bill will be to limit the weight at any rate to 16 stone. That is still too heavy in my opinion, but there is a big gain. Of course, the merchant can put into his bags any weight that he likes, but there is an enormous advantage in the sale of the grain by a recognised standard measure; and there will be the further advantage that we shall have comparable prices in the various markets of the country, and people will know what they are buying.

I only want to say a word or two to explain why I feel it to be my duty to oppose this Bill. It has been represented to me in my constituency that there are other interests besides those of the agriculturists. I do not profess to speak with detailed knowledge, but it seems to me that any interference of this kind would have a seriously detrimental effect upon the import trade. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] Hon. Gentlemen may not agree with that, but, after consideration of the Bill and of the proceedings in the Committee, that is the considered view of the traders concerned in that business.

I realise that the opposition to this Bill comes from the ports. First of all we had our slumbers broken this morning by a telegram from Liverpool. Then I come down here and find my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bristol (Mr. Inskip) doing everything he can, not to facilitate the progress of the Bill, but to obstruct it; and then, lastly, we hear an appeal from Leith. I have been profoundly impressed during this week by the subtlety of the Scottish mind in relation to railways among other things, and I am sure that they think there is something behind this Bill which possibly is not going to allow them to go on so smoothly as before. My hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Cautley) has just told us of the number of different weights by which oats or wheat is sold. Speaking, not as one profoundly acquainted with the mysteries of agriculture, but as a purchaser of those materials, I am sure that the larger quantity has always been charged against ma, whether or not the measure delivered has quite corresponded thereto. This Bill has had ample opportunities of being considered and understood by the country, but although it is a Friday, and we have had a very heavy week, and the Government Bench, probably in consequence of that, is depleted, we ought to be told what the considered view of the Government is. We are not favoured with the presence of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, but we have on the Government Bench the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for War, who, although the militant representative of the militant section of the Government, knows, I believe, a great deal about agriculture, and I venture to think that he could enlighten us as to the views of the Government on this matter. Whatever the measure may be, we, at any rate, ought to have the opportunity of knowing what those in authority think about proposals that are put before the House, and before the Third Reading is carried the Government ought to tell us what in their judgment is the proper way of selling wheat and other agricultural produce.

I would not have intervened if it had not been for some observations of the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Cautley). He described in detail the great variations in the weight of quarters of oats and wheat all over the country, and pleaded for uniformity. Uniformity is a very fine word, and there is no doubt that we want to be uniform in many ways, but it occurs to me that we should have uniformity, not only in agriculture, but in law. I do not see at all why the charges in law should not be uniform. The question has been raised of the heavy weights that are put on the shoulders of men. Some of us come from Scotland, where the common agricultural produce of the country, oats, is generally turned into oatmeal. The Standard weight of a bag of oatmeal is 2½ cwts. and our men have no difficulty at all in carrying this weight. If the Bill had made it imperative that the weight should be reduced per bag, and no 280 lb. bag should be placed on the back of any man, I should have supported it more wholeheartedly, but it does not make it necessary to limit the weight per bag. As the agriculturists of Scotland are unanimously in favour of the Bill, and my friends the corn merchants at the Port of Leith have not made an effective protest up till now, although they have had time to do so, I must support the Bill.

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

The House divide: Ayes, 113; Noes, 18.

Bill the read Third time, and Passed.

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

I hope the House will give the Bill a Third Reading. It is a very simple Measure. Its object is to stop a loophole which now exists by which horses can be imported to the Continent via the Channel Islands.

I understood that we were on the Report stage of the Bill.

No Amendments were handed in. Therefore we proceeded at once to the Third Reading.

Everybody in the House knows of the agitation that has been carried on throughout the country against this pernicious traffic of the export of old and worn-out horses. This loophole does exist by which horses without examination can be sent to the Channel Islands, and from there pass on to various Continental stations. Everybody in the House considers it to be a national disgrace that these old horses, which have done their work and done it well in this country, should end their days under cruel treatment, let alone the disgraceful conditions under which they travel to the Continent. If they are capable of any work at all, old and wornout though they may be, they have to do that work on the Continent. Moreover, they have very often to be marched a great many miles, lame and miserable, to the place where they are going to be killed, and they end in the knacker's yard.

I do not wish to say a word against the intentions of the Bill as explained by the hon. and gallant Member, but I would ask for some explanation as to what the Bill really does. I have no doubt that it is the intention of the promoters to prevent the exportation of these horses viâ the Channel Islands, but anybody who has to consult Statutes of this kind for the pur-of advising people, or finding out what the law is, are caused the greatest possible consternation by a Bill of this sort. There are 20 lines entirely of legislation by reference. It takes an extraordinarily able man to decipher what changes the Bill effects. Does it in any way affect Ireland or the Isle of Man, or is it confined entirely to the Channel Islands? I have not looked up these statutes, otherwise I may be able to answer some of these questions myself.

My hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Burn) is not certain in his facts. No horse can be sent to the Channel Islands without a veterinary certificate being given before it is put on board. On its arrival in the Channel Islands it must be immediately looked at by the Island veterinary surgeon, a man well known in his profession, and a very capable man, who gives his whole time, energy and ability in looking after these matters. It is practically impossible for any old or injured horse to arrive in the Channel Islands. I do not think the hon. Member knows the Channel Islands as well as I do. There is only one port at which the animals can be landed, and there is a public abbatoir there, to which they are taken if the local veterinary surgeon thinks they are not fit to undertake journeys, or work. The importation of horses is really from France rather than from this side. Every precaution is taken in the Channel Islands, that any lame, injured or worn-out horse should be slaughtered on arrival. I say that with knowledge of the place.

I have done my best to understand this Bill, but have failed. This is legislation by reference, against which the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) protests, and yet I see his name at the baek of the Bill. It reminds me of a practice in Scotland on All Fool's Day, when you get a note from somebody which says that the note must not be opened until you get to a certain place, and inside are the lines

"Do not laugh, do not smile,

But send the fool another mile."

In this Bill you are sent on from one Act to another, and then you come back to the place where you started just as wise as you were before you started. The hon. Member (Mr. Bawlinson) was justified in appealing for an explanation of the Bill. Another hon. Member (Sir B. Falle) protested against the implication of cruelty in the Channel Islands. He knows as well as I do that the Island people are the most humane people, and if the Bill suggests that the people in the Channel Islands are more cruel than they are in any other part of the country, I join in protesting against a suggestion of that sort. It shows the confusion of mind which a Bill of this sort creates when it is passed upon the principle of legislation by reference. I hope that the right hon. Baronet will explain what the Bill does. With the glimmerings of intelligence which I possess, I think I am in favour of the intentions of the promoters, but I should like them more clearly expressed than they have been up to the present.

I really think the last speaker has done himself less than justice when he says that with the faint glimmerings of intelligence which he possesses he cannot understand the Bill. The hon. Member possesses one of the shrewdest minds in this House, and if he had wanted he could have mastered this somewhat stupidly drawn Clause 1. I believe the draftsman is to blame and I think the promoters should have pursued a much more modern method than has been employed. The mischief is we have a continuous recital of two Acts of Parliament. If you omitted the whole portion of the Bill down to line 18 and said that so-and-so in the previous Act shall be deemed to mean so-and-so, it would have done all that was necessary. All the Bill seeks to do is to substitute the words "United Kingdom" for the words which have been hitherto used—"Great Britain." My hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Burn) in moving the Third Reading of this Bill, though it was denied very vehemently by the hon. and gallant Baronet who sits beside me (Sir B. Falle) said that this traffic, though forbidden as between ports of Great Britain, is not forbidden in the wider sense between ports in the United Kingdom, and in the result that the traffic was carried on without the supervision which the Act requires between the ports of this country and the Channel Islands. I only rise to say that, although Clause 1 is clumsily drawn, it is really quite clear in the end. If as is alleged there is this unregulated traffic proceeding between the ports of this country and the Channel Islands, this Bill if it were passed would stop it.

I would like to ask my hon. and learned Friend if he understands this Bill. You are going to alter "Great Britain" to the "United Kingdom," that is, you prohibit exports from the Channel Islands to France. Have you any powers to legislate for the Channel Islands? I did not propose to divide against the Bill, but I cannot support a measure which none of the promoters seems to understand.

I do not know if my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Dr. Murray) will be flattered by the words used by the hon. and learned Member who has just spoken. He tells us that this Bill is absolutely vital and we ought to understand it, and at the same time says it is a most imperfect Bill marred by the stupidity of the draftsman, and altogether one requires to read it in the most careful way. Now we have two eminent lawyers, the hon. Member for the Ealing Division (Sir H. Nield) and the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rawlinson) who take different views on the subject. By means of this discussion we have arrived at some glimmering of what the Bill really means. When I first read this Bill I thought it was going to touch something much more important and fundamental in regard to which, in common with all other Members of this House, I have been inundated with letters and literature as to the iniquity of this traffic. This Bill is not going to touch that at all. It is merely a piece of legislation to bring within the rules that now regulate the ports of Great Britain, the ports of the Channel Islands. When we ask what about Ireland, we get no answer. I wonder if there are any Irish Members present who are prepared to say that special legislation has to be passed in order to protect this country against the iniquity that may be wrought in Ireland as well as in the Channel Islands. I find that, as far as the Channel Islands are concerned, the Member most closely connected with them repudiates entirely the view taken by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the Third Reading. It seems a matter of considerable importance that we should find out whether there is such extreme laxity in the Channel Islands, and whether they do in fact take so very little care and have so very little regard for those things that they require this special legislation. The promoters of the Bill have no doubt good reasons for pressing it, but I think we should have some further explanation. I am really surprised my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) has nothing to tell us about this Bill. Why is that? The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir T. Bennett) is also here, but not another one of the long list of Members who support the Bill feels sufficiently anxious or sufficiently zealous to take the trouble to explain it. Except the hon. Member for Torquay (Colonel Burn) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London and the hon. Member for Sevenoaks none of the other supporters of the Bill are here. If the right hon. Member for the City of London prefers to remain silent, I beg the hon. Member for Sevenoaks to give us the advantage of a lucid statement on the Bill.

I have been appealed to three times by the last speaker, and that appeal I cannot resist even had it been made only once. He asked me to explain the details of this Bill. I am in sympathy with the general purposes of the Bill, but I make the frank confession that I trusted so fully to the good feeling and the capacity of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Torquay (Colonel Burn) that I have not taken a very prominent part either in the promotion or the drafting of the Bill; in fact, in the drafting of the Bill I have taken no part whatever. It seems to me that this discussion has given us an opportunity for enlarging our elementary knowledge of political geography. We may be able to ascertain whether Guernsey and the Channel Islands are within the limits of the United Kingdom, and when we have cleared up that point probably the whole question will appear clearer to us. I am under the impression that there has been a loophole which has allowed a great deal of this traffic to go forward from one of the Channel Islands. Those are the facts or the assumed facts on which I form my judgment of the Bill. An hon. Member has told us that the assumed facts are no facts, and that the premises on which the Bill is based do not exist. I am sure there are Members of the House who can either confirm or refute that statement I have no information on the subject. If it be the case that there is a loophole through which a great deal of this traffic is allowed to pass, it is obviously necessary that some such Bill as this should be passed. On that understanding I give the Bill my full support.

I did not intend to say anything until the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) and the hon. and learned Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield) stated that they could not understand the Bill. I do not know whether this is the Bill which is to stop the export of old horses to the Continent. If it is, I should like to give it my whole-hearted support. I cannot understand the Bill because the hon. and gallant Member for Torquay (Colonel Burn) did not explain it very fully. Several Members who are backing the Bill know a great deal about the procedure of the House, but they are remaining silent. I think we ought to have some explanation of the Bill, and I ask either that it be explained or that it be postponed.

I do not pretend to be a lawyer, either professional or amateur, I am only an ordinary human being. Just as I protested against cruelty to human beings in the War, so I protest against this traffic in animals. It means that those who are not able to speak for themselves are made the victims of others who desire to make profit out of their necessity and sufferings. I come from a constituency where there is considerable traffic in these unfortunate animals. Those concerned have got the best they can out of the animals and they then make the animals a matter of trade, regardless of the conditions of export or the conditions under which the animals may be used in future. As trade unionists we have done our best to protect our members from any possibility of ill-treatment in any connection, and we certainly think it is wrong that dumb animals should be treated as mere machines for the purpose of producing profits and afterwards be used for the convenience of those who would trade on their sufferings. I cannot explain the law, but I do not believe that Irishmen, or even people in the Channel Islands, desire to use animals cruelly. I do not care what the technicalities of the law may be, I think the Bill ought to pass. I am sure that the people of Ireland and of the Channel Islands will not protest against the measure because of any technicalities which may arise. We are against cruelty, whether to animals or to human beings, and we shall exercise what influence we possess to protect animals as well as human beings.

I do not happen to be a promoter of the Bill, but I am a lawyer, and since the question was raised I have looked up the legal definition of "United Kingdom." The suggestion has teen made that the United Kingdom includes the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, and that in that event it would be ultra vires for this House to legislate for those islands. The legal meaning of "United Kingdom" is, as a matter of fact, England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, and the Isle of Wight, but the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are excluded from the definition. Bearing that in mind the effect of this Bill is to extend the prohibition of this traffic from the United Kingdom, in the sense of Great Britain, to the United Kingdom and Ireland, that is to say, the only alterations of the law are the extension of the existing restrictions on this traffic from the United Kingdom to Ireland and the inclusion of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man among the ports of destination. Therefore, I submit that the objections raised against the passage of the Bill are really irrelevant.

I came to the House with the definite intention of supporting this Bill. No one can view the traffic in these worn-out horses without realising that it is an abominable traffic. Some drastic legislation should be framed immediately to deal with the matter. I cannot understand the silence of the promoters of the Bill. What is the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) doing? If Members on this side of the House had introduced a Bill in which he was particularly interested and no Member on this side had risen to support the Bill, he would have been one of the first to repudiate them and would have spoken, probably, words that would have filled the OFFICIAL REPORT to the extent of six or seven columns. I appeal to the right hon. Baronet to give us some information as to his intentions. What is his interpretation of the Bill? I do not suppose that he himself or the hon. and gallant Member for Torquay (Colonel Burn) have any idea of camouflaging this matter, or have any desire to rush the Bill through without fully explaining it to the House. The organisation which has done so much in the interests of worn-out horses would not like that this Debate should close without some expression of opinion from the hon. Member to whom I have referred. I therefore appeal to my hon. Friends to rise—if I may say so respectfully, to manfully and courageously rise to an occasion of this description. The interpretation given by the previous speaker has confused me and I want to be a little more enlightened. I am reminded of the fact that certain Acts of Parliament have been made applicable to the Channel Islands, but in one case brought before my notice this week, that of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, I am told it has been made applicable in the Channel Islands, but that the authorities have refused to utilise their power under that particular Act. Supposing the Channel Islands are not to come within the scope of the Bill, what is to prevent an unscrupulous individual, anxious for pecuniary profit, from shipping worn-out horses to the Channel Islands, and then, by the process known by those engaged in transport as re-shipping, to continue to carry on this trade?

This Bill does in terms prohibit shipment from any port in the United Kingdom to any port outside the United Kingdom, which would include the Channel Islands ports.

I only want to be perfectly clear. My sole desire is to stop this traffic, and that is why I appeal to the promoters for more illumination, for more light, in order that we may give a definite decision. Their silence in this Debate astounds me. I am sure they have no desire to rush the Bill through without elucidating it. They have watched the Bill through Committee and utilised the best that was in them to promote its object, and surely they are not going to allow this Debate to close without giving the House the benefit of their views and their knowledge.

4.0 P.M.

There is no need now to appeal to the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) because he has cleared out. I think the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Waterson) deserves credit for being the only one who has the power to move him out of his place. This Bill has created more intense satisfaction throughout the country than any other Bill I have ever known to come before the House. We have been deluged with correspondence asking us to support it, and therefore the silence which prevails is strange to us all. Can the promoter have inadvertently put something into the Bill which some vested interest is up against? I do not know if that is so, but it does not matter so far as I am concerned, because what I am out for is to prevent this traffic in worn-out horses, no matter what interest is concerned. Nor does it matter to me who the promoters of the Bill are. The outstanding fact remains that an inhuman traffic is being carried on in this country which is a disgrace to everybody concerned. It is a traffic which makes our blood boil, and our spirits revolt, and we have an opportunity to-day of putting a stop to it. When these horses are worn out, why cannot they be put out of their misery in a proper and scientific manner? To trade and make profit out of their suffering is a brutal thing, and that is what we protest against. I hope there is no possible subterfuge or undercurrent which has produced the silence of the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), and even his exclusion from the House. If he has run away from the Bill we will stand by it and destroy this abominable traffic.

It is amazing to me that the outstanding supporter of the Bill and the champion of dumb animals should run away when he gets an opportunity of saying a word in favour of that cause. If he were here, I should say—

He is here!

The return of the warrior!

I am pleased to see he is here, because I have an opportunity of saying when the right hon. Gentleman is present what I did not care to say when he was absent. It seems to me his outlook is so bound up in things human that he has fastened upon the championship of dumb animals in order to satisfy that little craving sense of justice and sympathy which will arise even in the hardest heart. I am pleased to see he has supported a cause like this, but it seems to me that having found a cause to champion, and having got an opportunity to-day of championing it, he is now giving the impression to the House and the country that he has only been playing with the matter. If he is not prepared to say a word in support of this Bill, but only to sit there quietly while it passes, we have a right to doubt his genuineness. I am pleased that we have a Bill of this kind before us to-day. We have heard with great surprise of the shameful traffic that is taking place in worn-out horses, and it seemed to me almost incredible that it was possible for people, having used horses and been served by them faithfully, to seek to make a profit out of them in this way. I heard with great surprise that some of the animals that were being used in that way were animals that have come out of the mines, and it seemed to me almost incredible that a horse that has worked in a mine and laboured under dark and dismal conditions in the lonely caverns below ground, sometimes miles away from a pit shaft, that may have been down there for years without seeing the light of day, animals that appeal to the sympathy of those who know them, and who are apt sometimes to be hardened by similar conditions—it seemed incredible they should be used in this way for the purpose of making profit. The kinder way surely would be to bring these animals to the surface—

Really this is not the time to go into questions of that sort. The scope of this Bill is limited to traffic with the Channel Islands.

I am obliged for your ruling. I think the champions of the Bill ought to give some explanation of its more technical side, but I am pleased at any rate that it is at least a measure of justice to dumb animals which has been resisted up to the present time. At any rate, we are making a beginning, and this Bill is therefore a good omen, and we may be able to improve upon it as time goes on. I do think the right hon. Baronet should say a few words in support of the Bill. I should be sorry to set aside some of the opinions I have held about him, although I do not suppose he would be very much disturbed about that. It has been a consolation to me since I came into the House that at least he has shown some enthusiasm in this direction, and unless he expresses himself on behalf of these dumb creatures that cannot speak for themselves, creatures that have worked in their day and generation, and sometimes given more service than not only some of the workers but some of the people who are directing these organisations, I shall be disappointed. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will redeem his reputation and save the British public from putting an interpretation upon his silence that I am sure they will be likely to do in view of the attitude he has taken up to-day. I shall support the Bill, but I not only want to feel that I am going into the Lobby on behalf of a good cause, but that I am going in with a Member of this House who has a good deal of leeway to make up in things humane. Before I came to this House I thought he was beyond redemption, and that is the general opinion of Labour outside the House of Commons. I should not like to think he was only half-hearted in his sympathy with the things that he sup- ports, and I hope, therefore, he will say a word on behalf of these animals, to save his reputation and to save the public putting a wrong interpretation upon his silence.

I only rise to remove, perhaps, an objection to this Bill. The authority of this House to legislate for the Channel Islands has been questioned, and I should like to read what Professor Dicey says in regard to that matter. I think we shall all agree he is an eminent authority upon constitutional practice.

On a point of Order. I understand this Bill does not attempt to legislate for the Channel Islands, and, therefore, is it in order to go into the law on this subject?

The lawyers appear to differ. So it is not for me to give an opinion.

I think it would clear the matter up. He said:

"The Crown can legislate by Proclamations or Orders in Council for a newly-conquered territory, and has claimed the right, although the validity is always doubtful, to legislate for the Channel Islands by Order on Council. Acts of Parliament further applying to the Channel Islands are, I am told, as a matter of custom, extended to the Islands by Order in Council. There is, however, of course, no doubt that an Act of Parliament can, in any case, override the effect of an Order in Council, and that such an Act is of effect in any part of the British Dominions to which it extends."

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

I beg to move, at the beginning of the Clause, to insert the words, "In cases to which this Section applies."

The fact of this Amendment having to be moved to-day arises from the circumstance that the hon. Member in whose name the Amendment stood did not appear in the Committee Room in time to move his Amendment. The same Amendment appears exactly to Clause 2. That Amendment was moved in Committee. Afterwards it was arranged that this Amendment, which is a drafting Amendment, should be moved on Report stage.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words

This Section applies to—

I would put it respectfully to the hon. Gentleman that the House would like to know exactly what is the effect of this Amendment. No explanation has been given. We were protesting a little while ago against the conduct of the promoter's of the previous Bill that they were not sufficiently explaining to the House what was the effect of their Bill. I should like my hon. Friend to tell us what exactly this Amendment means.

On a point of Order. I understood, Mr. Speaker, on the Amendment which my hon. Friend has just moved, that you put the Question and collected the voices. [HON. MEMBERS: "No" and "Yes."] The hon. Gentleman opposite (Dr. Murray) is now speaking, and there is no question before us.

I had collected the voices, but I did not declare whether the "Ayes" or the "Noes" had it, because at that moment I observed the hon. Member rising.

Why is the right hon. Baronet for the City so enthusiastic about this, and not about the last Bill?

I was only asking my hon. Friend to give us an explanation of this Amendment.

This Amendment is exactly the same as the one which is already in the Bill. It refers to exactly the same subject as Clause 2, but if it is necessary I will explain the point again on the Third Reading. This Amendment was put in at the request of the Ministry of Health in order to restrict the operation of the Bill to certain local authorities which had special advantage given to them previously.

We are simply asking for an explanation of this Amendment now, and not upon the Third Reading.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 100; Noes, 17.

CLAUSE 2.—(Tenure of office and appointment of sanitary inspectors.)

1. In oases to which this Sub-section applies the sanitary inspector of a local authority who is required by the terms of his appointment to devote the whole of his time to the duties of his office or to the duties of that office and of any other office or offices held by him under any local or public authority, shall not hold office or be appointed for a limited period only and shall be removable by the authority with the consent of the Minister of Health or by the Minister and not otherwise.

This Sub-section applies to-

( a ) the sanitary inspector of a county borough where any portion of the salary of the sanitary inspector was paid out of moneys voted by Parliament before it was constituted a county borough;

( b ) the sanitary inspector of a county district any portion of whose salary is paid out of the county fund of the county in which the district is situate and charged to the Exchequer contribution account:

Provided that where more than one sanitary inspector is appointed by a local authority the foregoing paragraphs ( a ) and ( b ) of this Sub-section shall apply only to the senior sanitary inspector as determined by the local authority.

^{* * * * * *}

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "In cases to which this Sub-section applies the" and to insert instead thereof the word "A."

The principal thing in this Clause as regards sanitary inspectors is the change of name from "Inspectors of Nuisances" to "Sanitary Inspectors." That in itself does not better the position of the sanitary inspector. The change of name does not put him in any better relationship to the local authority which employs him. As far as the principle of the Bill is concerned, I am in perfect agreement with it, and on principles of equity and justice I hold that the local council which has jurisdiction over a sanitary inspector should not dismiss him except with the consent of the Ministry of Health, for the simple reason that under this Bill the Ministry of Health is partly responsible for the salary of the sanitary inspector. It is a very limited outlook for the people appointed by local councils who have the effective carrying out of the sanitation laws of this country that the responsibility of the Ministry of Health should be limited to the extent that the Ministry is partly responsible for the payment of salaries. Security of tenure should apply to every sanitary inspector whether the Ministry of Health is partly responsible for his salary or not. Otherwise the inspector may be dismissed at the end of 12 months by a majority decision of the local authority. The local council can conveniently forget to re-appoint the inspector should it suit their purpose to do so, and he is thereupon driven practically from his employment. There have been occasions in the history of local councils in this country where individuals who have been dominant on the councils, have in their own private interests exercised effective control over the council, and have interfered with the effective carrying out of the duties of the sanitary inspectors. It is not a just or fair condition of things, where an individual is employed by a local council to carry out the sanitary laws and is doing his work effectively, and thereby possibly mulcting owners of houses in expenses that can be justified in accordance with those laws, that that individual finds himself in disfavour with these people, and they are in a position either to dismiss him or to forget to re-appoint him. My purpose in moving the deletion of these words is that every sanitary inspector should have security of tenure—that at least no local council should be empowered to dismiss him except with the consent of the Ministry of Health. He is carrying out the duties placed upon him by the Ministry of Health; he is carrying out the laws of the country as passed by this House, probably at the instigation of the Ministry of Health; and if he is carrying out his duties effectively, the Ministry of Health should be partly responsible for his retention in his position. The difference between the chief sanitary inspector and the ordinary sanitary inspector is only a question of degree. It is only a question of the Government being partly responsible for the man's salary. The moral relationship to the Ministry of Health of the chief sanitary inspector and of the sanitary inspector are the same. The moral obligation of that man, whether he be partly paid by the Ministry of Health or wholly paid by the local council, is the same.

What is the position of the sanitary inspector who is honest in carrying out his duties, if at the same time, because of his honesty, he runs counter to the private interests of certain individuals who dominate the local council? He is dismissed. He may have been a sanitary inspector for years. He is not in a position to turn his hand to any manual labour, and his dismissal from any local body will prejudice him as regards getting a position with any other commercial body or private employer. This House should not pass a Bill containing Clauses which lay an individual in such circumstances open to be placed in so unfair a position.

I beg to Second the Amendment.

I agree with nearly all the arguments used by the hon. Member, with a view to the omission of these words. We have already passed exactly similar words in Clause 1, with regard to medical officers of health. I entirely agree with the hon. Member's arguments as to the importance of security of tenure, and that is the object of the Bill. It was, however, absolutely essential, if we were to get this Bill through, that we should make concessions to those authorities which, some years ago, bought their freedom by refusing to accept any grants from the Government. If we had not made that concession, we should not have succeeded in obtaining their assent, and the consequence would have been that the Ministry of Health would be unable to help us. It applies only to a few local authorities. Further, in any circumstances this Bill only deals with present sanitary inspectors and officers of health. The object of the Bill is to place existing sanitary inspectors and officers of health in the same position as those who will be appointed hereafter by the Local Government Board. When one wants to secure a large and very useful measure affecting the public health of the country, one is compelled sometimes to make concessions which one would rather not have made. That is the case with regard to those few sanitary inspectors who are excluded from the advantages of the Bill by the fact that their local authorities have entered into an arrangement with the Ministry of Health that they should have freedom of action. Therefore I beg hon. Members opposite, realising that it is better to have four-fifths of a loaf than no bread, to accept the Bill as it stands, without insisting on an Amendment which is certain to wreck the whole Bill.

I appreciate the hon. Baronet's explanation. I have no desire to wreck the Bill, and am in entire agreement with its main fundamentals. I shall therefore withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In Sub-section (1) leave out the words "hold office or".—[ Sir P. Magnus. ]

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

I beg to move "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Hon. Members will not require any lengthy explanation as regards a Bill which has already passed Second Reading on three different occasions, twice without a Division, and once by a considerable majority. If any hon. Member be under the impression that by passing it he will injure the cause of vivisection, I will read an extract from the "Lancet" dated 31st May, 1919:

This is the third or fourth time that I have had to speak on this Bill, and, naturally, it is rather difficult to say anything new. I know that is not always necessary in Debate. I will summarise the chief objections which we, as a scientific and medical profession, have against the Bill. I am a dog lover—all my friends are dog lovers, and we sympathise with the passages read by the right hon. Gentleman. It is not that we dislike dogs, but that we cannot afford to lose the experience that can be gained from them. The first thing that we assert, in contradiction to the "Lancet," is that there are many fields of knowledge that we must explore if we are to advance the science of medicine and do our duty in the fight against disease, and some of the fields of observation that we gather from the dog are quite necessary. It is not simply a question of vivisection.

The animals that are usually used in experiments fall into four classes: these are the small rodents; rats, mice, and guinea-pigs; dogs, cats to a smaller extent; horses, rabbits, and apes. Other animals are only occasionally used. Rodents are almost entirely used in connection with investigations respecting infectious diseases. Horses are used not so much for experiments as for commercial purposes and for the producing of serum, such as tetanus anti-toxin, which saved so many lives in the late War. The animal has to be infected with the disease. The dog and the ape are really the only two animals from which we get the main part of our knowledge as regards the processes of health and disease. It is quite true that most of the work could be done with apes, not so conveniently in some cases, certainly not so cheaply. But one or other must be used, for various reasons. In the first place, if we want to get results that we can apply in the treatment of disease, we must have animals whose mode of life resembles man's, who live under the same conditions as man, whose food resembles man's, and the chemical changes in whose bodies are on the same lines as man's. These are really the only two animals that fulfil those conditions. I know the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) is not out for humanitarian purposes. It does not matter to him what animals we vivisect so long as they are not dogs, and therefore why not use apes? There are various objections. In the first place there are not so many apes in this country. In the second place, the apes are not so easily handled. They are not so tame as dogs. They are more like spoiled children. Put a dressing on a dog and he does not trouble so much about it. In a few hours he apparently forgets about it. But the ape does not forget. He never rests satisfied until he has torn open the stitches and vitiated the whole experiment. It would be extremely difficult to carry out many delicate operations, which do not hurt the animals in the least.

Then there is one consideration which the right hon. Baronet, like a railway magnate, despises, the expense. We must take account of the question of expense. The men who are engaged in this sort of work are in the great majority of cases poor men. They do not spend their money on pleasure but on instruments and other things they want for their experiments; and to ask the poor man to buy such expensive animals as apes is out of the question. I would be very much surprised if this House would pass any Vote for a laboratory if they found that apes were being used instead of dogs. There would be an economical outcry against it. The results which have been got from the experiments on dogs are of the greatest value. To begin with, the observations which have been made on dogs are the groundwork of our whole knowledge of the healthy processes of human nature. Physiology, the science of health, is based almost entirely on observations on dogs. It is said by opponents that they would not so much object to experiments if they led to a practical result. But it does not do to despise knowledge because it has no immediate utilitarian outlook. Almost all the great sciences have begun in insig- nificant things. I am in the presence of one of the greatest scientists of the day. Even the science of electricity arose in connection with a trivial thing. My teaching was that a lady was preparing frogs for the table and hung them on a nail. When her husband touched them he observed certain contractions in the legs. He investigated the matter, with results that are well known to-day. Take investigations in regard to certain diseases. In cases of malaria the spleen is very much enlarged. The spleen is very fragile, and a blow will—

It being Five of the Clock, the Debate stood Adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Friday next.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3, till Monday next (6th June).

Adjourned at One minute after Five o'clock.