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

In presenting this Bill to the House for Second Reading, I do so because of a visit that I was induced to pay to a slaughter-house some 25 years ago, when I was a young man. That visit determined me that, if ever I had the power and was placed in the position to do so, I would take whatever steps I could to have some of the cruelties and horrors that I saw in that slaughter-house removed. I see that on the Order Paper to-day there is an Amendment asking the House to decline to give a Second Reading to the Bill until the whole subject of the slaughter of animals has been fully investigated by a Select Committee. That Amendment is either put down as a means of shelving the Bill, or it shows the ignorance of the promoters of the Amendment as to what has been done.

As early as 1908, an Admiralty Commission was set up to inquire into the whole system of slaughter. It was an impartial commission, including numerous men of wide experience and knowledge. Its report was published in 1908, 22 years ago, and the unanimous opinion of the Commissioners was that in the case of every animal stunning should be resorted to before slaughter. In 1922, a Cabinet Committee was appointed by the Coalition Government. That Committee did not function, but it was reconstituted in 1923 under the Conservative Government, and the late Minister of Agriculture, now Lord Bayford, Sir Thomas Inskip, and the late Minister of Health were members of it. That Committee inquired into the whole question most meticulously, and the result of their investigations was that it was announced in Parliament that the Ministry of Health would continue to approve of the model by-law 9b, which ensured that, if a local authority required it, all animals slaughtered in that local authority's area should be stunned before slaughter.

In the same year, 1923, a most exhaustive investigation was carried out by the Health Department of the Corporation of the City of London, at the instance of the Corporation, and they also made a report after a most exhaustive inquiry. Then we had the Scottish Act two years ago, from which most of the experience has been derived which has enabled us to bring forward this Bill to-day. Therefore, whatever the promoters of the Amendment may think about this Bill, there is certainly no question that, if they study the matter and if they study the reports that have been issued, they can come to only one conclusion, and that is that their Amendment should be withdrawn from the Paper.

There are very few of us who are not indignant when we see a dog ill-treated, no matter to whom that dog belongs. There are very few of us who do not feel sore if we see a half-starved horse dragging an unfair load. The reason is that these things are brought within our immediate ken; we see them, and, therefore, our feelings are moved. But slaughter-houses are unpleasant places; we do not go to them; and, therefore, we deliberately leave ourselves uninformed as to what goes on in them. That is the position to-day, and that is despite the fact that slaughter-houses only exist because we demand meat for our sustenance and our daily food. It is because we do not see, because the matter is not brought within our immediate knowledge, that we do not make those protests in the name of humanity and of common sense to which every one of us should subscribe our names. Let us remember that that suffering only takes place as a result of our requirements.

Before I go into the detailed reasons for the Bill and its justification, I would like to make my apologies to my many hon. Friends whose postbags have been made heavy and whose pockets have been lightened as a result of this Bill. I feel for them very much; but I would like to say that I myself am a sufferer. I have received hundreds of letters within the last 10 days or fortnight, but not from the same source, and that is interesting. My hon. Friends have been receiving letters from the general public, who have been horrified to know that inhumane slaughter still exists. I have been receiving letters in similar numbers from every organisation and every society—the Royal Sanitary Institute, for instance—and from practising butchers, from bacon curers, from scientists, from doctors, from public authorities, and from every type of individual; I have been receiving letters backing up my Bill, encouraging my efforts, and promising warm, support. I may mention, among others, Professor Hobday, the distinguished chief of the Royal Veterinary College—from whom only this morning I have received another letter wishing me the best of good luck and promising his warm support—Professor Cathcart, the distinguished physiologist of the University of Glasgow, and Professor Barger of Edinburgh.

I could go on for a long time quoting the names of such men, as well as hundreds of letters from practising butchers and bacon curers. Some of them I will quote, and in this connection I wish to apologise to the House if, in their opinion, I give too many exerpts, but I do not want to advance my opinions on this subject. I am a layman. I know a certain amount about it, having made a study of it for 25 years, but I am not a practising butcher or a bacon curer, and, therefore, I am forced, in order to convince the House and the country, to give the opinions of those whose opinions are worth having—men who are in the trade themselves, who know what they are talking about, and whose opinions matter. I do suggest that these letters, the article which appeared in the "Times" this morning, and the letters which have been appearing lately, show that the demand is a national one, that it emanates from every section of the community, and that, therefore, it is a demand which this House will be able to meet.

As regards the Bill itself, I have included in its heading, as hon. Members will note, the words: science that we are in a position to-day to offer to the public a weapon which is as nearly as possible absolutely perfect in its working and in its effect. Of course, there always are and always have been objections to the innovations of science. We prefer the proven rather than the untried. We are a conservative race—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—I was not speaking politically. We are innately a conservative race; we object to new things, preferring to rely on the proven and tried rather than the semi-unknown. To say, however, that this method of ours is unknown is, of course, absolutely wrong; it is practised by hundreds, and, indeed, thousands of practising butchers to-day, to their intense satisfaction and the satisfaction of those who eat their meat.

There is one point that I would like hon. Members to realise, and it is one with which those who engage in this humane work are faced every day. When our sympathies are constantly being challenged, and when one is often brought into touch with cruelty and suffering, one is rather apt to get carried away and to get an obsession on the subject. I myself and all of us who are interested in this matter, have tried to fight against any undue sentimentality in connection with this great cause, but when your sympathies are constantly challenged, and when people attack you for being sentimental, you should face that challenge and meet it, and prove that there is no sound justification for it. That is what I hope to do. I hope to prove that our purpose is not based on sentiment but on logic, on reason, and on public and trade demands.

The fundamental desire of our people is to see fair play, and that is what we want. This House equally wants to see fair play. It wants to represent the feeling of the country outside, and it is in that sense that I shall confidently appeal to the House to give the Bill a Second Reading. There are approximately 16,000,000 animals involved every year. They cannot speak for themselves and it is up to us, who are more happily, or unhappily, gifted, to speak for them, to act for them and to see that they are safeguarded as far as it is possible for us to do so, remembering always that it is because of our health and of our well being, and the necessity in our opinion for keeping that maintained, that this suffering goes on. When we or our family have to undergo an operation, we insist that an anaesthetic is applied before the knife is applied. That is what we want to do to animals. We want to ensure that they are stunned before the knife falls or other means of destruction is used.

What does the Bill seek to achieve, and what are the reasons for its introduction? It seeks to secure that all animals shall be effectively stunned prior to the actual business of slaughter taking place. It seeks to ensure that, in addition to the 370 local authorities which have the by-law making the use of the humane killer compulsory, the recalcitrant local authorities are brought into line with the more progressive, and it seeks to ensure that those butchers who are not yet educated to the standard of the hundreds of thousands who are practising the humane killer are also brought up to date. We have introduced it because of four points, only, because we believe the present system causes unnecessary suffering, because we believe our proposed method is better and eliminates that suffering, because we believe that by our method no damage is caused to the carcases from the point of view of public health, and because we believe the extra cost involved as the result of our method is infinitesimal.

We shall probably be challenged, and I propose to meet the challenge. Let us examine the present method—that is outside the 370 local authorities that are more up to date. The present method is by the pole-axe and the knife. The pole-axe is used largely on the large animals and the knife on the small. I have brought in a pole-axe so that the House may see exactly how these animals are killed. It is hollow at one end and weighted at the other. I will describe how it is used. In the hands of a strong, capable healthy and expert man I am willing to concede that it may be a successful weapon of stunning. The man has to know his job but—and there is a very large but—any hesitation, any shirking or nervousness on the part of either the man or the animal, any slipping on the blood-covered floor, and there are many, especially in our private slaughter-houses and abattoirs as well, causes inevitable cruelty. Wherever the human factor and disability enters in, you have danger, and with the pole-axe the human element enters into it the whole time. You must have an immovable animal and an absolutely expert and nerveless operator. Those two things do not often synchronise.

I quoted some time ago the report of the health department of the London Corporation, which carried out this impartial investigation in 1923 and published a report in 1925. Let me give some figures as the result of that investigation. A hundred bulls that were slaughtered required 250 blows with the pole-axe, 100 oxen required 123 blows, 100 cows required 127 and 100 pigs required 155. For 400 animals, 655 blows of the pole-axe were required. It may be argued that I am not speaking the truth. It is true. There are instances of which I myself have been a witness of four, five, six and eight blows being required for one animal.

I do not want to harrow the feelings of hon. Members, but there are very few people in the House or in the country who have ever seen a pole-axe or know what it is like or what the killing of an animal is like. I do, and I want to give hon. Members the benefit of my knowledge. I have seen large oxen felled by one blow which has not been a success. The animal has a rope round its neck passed through a ring in the wall of the slaughter-house, and the animal's head is held tight to the ring. It does not prevent it moving or falling, though it nearly does. The animal falls to the ground but, not being stunned, it staggers again to its feet, the blood pouring from the wound. It is struck again. I have seen a blow which has struck above the eye and knocked out the eye, dropping the animal again, and it struggled to its feet again. That went on several times until, happily, unconsciousness supervened to relieve the animal from the torture inflicted on it. That is for our food.

What of the apprentices and learners? It will, no doubt, be advanced by my opponents that they practise on a dead head. They do to a certain extent, but they have to transfer at some time to the living head, and that is surely the time when nervousness will more than ever overcome them, changing from the dead head, something they know, to a live, pulsating head, which will shift and move. I should like to read an extract I have taken from a statement made by John Doods, superintendent of the Carlisle public slaughter-house, referring to bullocks.

Now we come to the up-to-date bacon-curing factories where they say that every modern development of science has been brought into use. To my mind, the system adopted in the up-to-date bacon-curing factory is one of the most vicious and criminal which this country has ever allowed to take place. I will prove it. The pig is noosed as before from the pen and, as it comes near—as hon. Members will see from the blue print which has been sent round to them—a young man hitches a chain round one of its hind legs. The chain is then tightened and as it tightens it bites into the sensitive tissues surrounding the point until the bone is exposed. The pig is slowly—or as rapidly as the machinery can work—drawn up with its head downwards and passes overhead along the chain until it comes to a platform where the sticker is standing. As it passes the platform, the sticker makes a sweep with his knife at the throat of the pig and the pig passes on, now bleeding profusely, and moaning. It then goes on until it drops, or is dropped into the scalding cauldron at the other end. We will hope that when it drops into it it is dead, but there is no proof to that effect. Certainly, from the wriggles and movements of the pig up to the very minute when it is dropped into the scalding cauldron, there is a grave fear sometimes that it is not unconscious.

There is another method employed by one of the associate firms who are opposing my Bill. I will come to their names later and deal with them. They have made no secret of their opposition, as they have circulated hon. Members, and I make no secret of my opposition to them. There is another method employed at Ipswich by a firm called Messrs. Harris who are associated with the firms opposing my Bill. There the method is slightly different but equally appalling. I have taken this extract from the report of a meeting of the Ipswich Corporation.

I now come to sheep. Sheep, as I witnessed the proceeding, are brought in by the slaughter-man and led to a crutch. The crutch is a platform large enough to take a sheep, which can be held at a suitable distance above the ground for the purposes of slaughter. The sheep is placed on the crutch, and one leg is tucked under one of the bars of the chair of the crutch in order to keep the sheep from getting away. That is one way. Another way is to put chains round the body of the sheep in order to hold it fast. The slaughter-man then digs a knife into the throat of the sheep, and endeavours, with two movements, to sever the spinal column and then to sever the arteries. It is a very difficult movement and a very expert one. I have, on more than one occasion—and again I quote from my own experience—seen a sheep escape from the crutch during the operation and run round the slaughter-house bleeding until, in due time, its torture has been ended by some other method being adopted. And in that case again, you must come back to the beginner. Whatever may be said of the expert man, whatever cleverness or cunning he may display in carrying out his work, there is always the beginner to consider. You must remember that there are beginners coming on every day, and there must be. I will again quote, with regard to beginners, from an article in the "Veterinary Journal." It is not as long as the last quotation:

I hope that I have proved my first point, namely, that the present system causes unnecessary suffering. I now come to our method. Our proposed system, which is already so strongly backed and used, eliminates that unnecessary cruelty. Our method is, first of all, to stun the animal by a mechanical killer and then to do the normal and necessary bleeding afterwards. I have in my hands a mechanical killer. It is not loaded, and it does not matter whether it is or not. There is no bullet in it; it is quite safe.

It all depends in which direction you point it.

I will point it at myself. This is the ordinary normal killer used most largely by butchers and bacon curers. This is the great advantage of it. It has a captive bullet which is released by pressure from a cartridge. When the cartridge is discharged, the bullet is freed, and it pierces the brain of the animal.

After it has done its work it recedes into the barrel again. The type and length of bolt required depends upon the type of animal to be slaughtered. The strength of the cartridge again depends upon the age and type of the animal. A more powerful discharge and a longer bolt is required for an old tough skull than for a sheep or a calf. It is perfectly simple and sure. The slaughterman quietly and without any anticipation on the part of the animal puts the weapon to the appropriate part of the animal's head. It has no fear. There is nothing to warn it of the danger that is in front of it. The trigger is pulled, the bolt is discharged, the animal falls to the ground and utter unconsciousness is immediately caused. Is not that the best way of putting to sleep those animals whose meat we require? There is little strength required in the person operating the humane killer, and no skill, but merely ordinary care. In substantiation of my statements let me refer again to the report of the City of London Corporation. It is very enlightening. been used. The London County Council, which enforces the use of the humane killer, have received a petition from 600 doctors, including Sir Bernard Spilsbury, requesting that the Ministry of Health's model by-law should be applied in the case of all animals.

Since the Act has been in force in Scotland, during the past two years, there has been received in the London market annually from one firm alone in Dumfries 100,000 sheep, killed by the humane killer, which have fetched the highest price in London for the best Scotch mutton. I am not trying to work on the sentiments or feelings of hon. Members, but I am giving practical facts. The cost is not an inappreciable factor. Lately, experiments were conducted by one of the largest pork butchers in Norfolk on 8,000 pigs, all of which were killed by the humane killer, and the increased cost came to .57d. per carcase. How is any bacon curer to pass that cost on to the bacon producer, the farmer, who sells by the score, or on to the consumer in the price of a pork chop? The thing is perfectly ridiculous, and the trade know that. I challenge them to show how that cost can be passed on either backwards or forwards. I have made many inquiries in Scotland from many different sources and I have not received one complaint from any practising butcher in Scotland.

On the strength of these arguments, I base my appeal to the House. In reinforcement of the arguments I might say that we have the attitude of 370 local authorities who have voluntarily adopted the model by-law, and these 370 authorities include the London County Council and the Councils of Brighton, Durham, Hastings, Newcastle, Oldham, Manchester, Cardiff, Sheffield, Leeds, and Worcester.

Will the hon. and gallant Member say whether the local authorities who have adopted the model by-law have made exceptions? He mentioned the town which I have the honour to represent. That town adopted the model by-law, with an exception.

There is one town so far as I know that has made an exception, and that is Cardiff. They made an exception in regard to pigs. I understand that sheep have been included in all the towns. There are thousands of practising butchers who have voluntarily adopted the system. I have hundreds of letters from medical officers, practising butchers, from sanitary inspectors, meat inspectors, bacon curers, bacon exporters and others—I have only brought a few samples—from all over the country testifying to the efficiency of the method of slaughter proposed in the Bill, and in every case saying that under no circumstances would the slaughtermen go back to the barbarous system of the pole axe. We have to-day an opportunity of wiping a stigma from our name. This Bill gives us the opportunity to do that, and I hope the House will think very carefully before they agree to refer the Bill to a Select Committee which will merely mean killing the Bill.

Let me give hon. Members a few words in regard to the Bill itself. We have ensured that it will not come into operation in any respect for six months after it becomes law. A further six months will elapse before it will come into operation with regard to pigs and a further six months before it can apply to sheep. It will therefore be July, 1932, before the Bill is completely in operation. The reason for that is to give slaughtermen an opportunity of becoming fully cognisant of the law and familiar with the weapons so that no possible accident or trouble may take place.

The suggestion for altering the dates was made as a result of our experience in Scotland where the Act has been in force since 1928. In that Act pigs are exempt, and I have no doubt that that point will be brought up against the Bill. They were exempted for one reason only, because we felt that we had not at that time sufficient experience or knowledge to take the risk of inflicting damage on any section of the community. We wanted to be sure beyond all shadow of doubt that we were right in applying it to pigs as well. All shadow of doubt has now been removed, and I propose to show why it has been removed. Since the Act was brought into force in Scotland, in Glasgow every pig slaughtered to-day is slaughtered voluntarily by the humane killer. Although there is no compulsion whatever, every pig has been slaughtered voluntarily to the number of 25,000 pigs last year. Mr. Campbell, the general manager of markets in Glasgow, says: these people and give them the loan of the weapon. In Clause 2 local authorities are given power to grant licences in order to ensure that those who slaughter are properly qualified for the work. In Clause 4 we ensure adequate inspection for the purpose of seeing that the Act is properly carried out.

We do not fear the public or municipal abattoirs, because local authorities have a highly-trained technical staff, but we do fear the 20,000 private slaughter-houses, and that is where we want the inspection to be adequate and complete. In Scotland the inspectors of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals have been appointed Justice of the Peace constables, and they have the right of entry into private slaughter-houses. We want a similar thing granted in this Bill. We want the inspectors of the various humane societies who are approved by the Ministry of Health to have the right of entry into slaughter-houses in order to ensure that the Bill is properly administered. No slaughter-house need fear the Bill. If they are doing their work properly they will welcome it; if they are doing wrong they will fear it. Clause 6 has created some alarm. In this Clause we exempt Jews and Mohammedans. It is not wise at the present time to interfere with the fundamental religious beliefs of any race, and the question of killing is a ritual of the Jewish and Mohammedan community which is fundamental to their religion. My view is that we Christians and Gentiles should put our own house in order first before seeking to put others right, but if we can induce our Jewish friends to adopt our methods we shall have achieved a great purpose. For the moment we propose to exempt Jews and Mohammedans. In Clause 8 we also exempt those animals which are diseased or wounded or hurt, which must be slaughtered by any means as quickly as possible.

In the Schedule there is an excerpt from the model by-law of the Ministry of Health, which was framed as a result of the report of the committee in 1908. It ensures that reasonable treatment is given to animals before actual slaughter takes place, that they have a night's rest, a decent meal, and that reasonable precautions are taken to give them a fair amount of comfort before they have to face the knife or pistol. That is why we have included in the Schedule the model by-law as approved by the Ministry of Health. There is one further point which I must deal with, and again I apologise for taking up so much time of the House but I am one of the few who has really studied this question very intimately and I feel that I can give real facts with regard to this matter rather than having to rely upon a brief. Let me deal with a few of the objections which will be launched against the measure. I want to be quite straight and honest and open in my attack on those who are objecting to the Bill.

Where does the opposition come from? It comes from some of the bacon curing interests, which are controlled by an association of firms with headquarters near Birmingham—Marsh and Baxter, Ltd. I do not apologise for mentioning the name of this firm because they have circulated every hon. Member, and as they have come out into the open I feel that I have no reason to be ashamed in publicly giving the facts as far as I know them in regard to this firm. To give substance to their opposition I understand that they have secured some support from the Meat Trades Federation and also from the National Farmers' Union, possibly by giving an impression to these two bodies that the well-being and livelihood of their members would suffer as a result of the Measure. Indeed a report has just reached me that £10,000 has been put up to fight this Bill. But let us dispose of the arguments that we have already heard. They say that their method of hoisting and sticking is more humane. I think I have disposed of that argument already [HON. MEMBERS: "No"]. I do not want to take up too much time. If my hon. Friend who says "No" is not satisfied with the description of the killing as it is done to-day and of our proposed methods, nothing will convince him, and it would be waste of time to try to do so.

They say that our method is more costly. I have already given the cost as a halfpenny a carcase. They also say that they would be driven out of business if they adopted the new method. I ask hon. Members to visualise this great and prosperous firm, with all its ramifications and numerous controlled interests, being driven out of business as a result of a cost of a halfpenny a carcase. They say that our method is dangerous. I would mention here a strange phenomenon that I discovered recently. When a butcher or slaughterman wants to commit suicide he does not get a mate to put a rope round his neck and hold him to a ring in the wall, and then invite his forehead to a poleaxe. Nor does he get a friend to put a chain round his leg, to hang him up and stick his throat with a knife. What a butcher does is this: In regard to danger and accidents I have made an investigation and have found that from 1913 to 1920 there were 15 accidents that could be traced as resulting from the use of the humane killer, and that since 1920 there have been six; and the majority of those cases were suicide. Surely that is the greatest argument I could advance for the use of this humane killer—if a butcher wants to commit suicide he uses the most suitable weapon.

12 n.

They say that trade will suffer, and that in the present state of industrial depression we should not place any extra burden on a British industry that is only just holding its own. How well they know how to appeal to this generation! We know that at the moment pounds, shillings and pence are almost a dominating factor in our national life. How cunningly these people base their appeal on our interest in the question of pounds, shillings and pence! But I will meet that argument and dispose of it. They say that £50,000,000 worth of bacon and hams is imported into this country yearly, and that any increase in the cost of production will force them to close their premises and so add to unemployment. The few bacon-curing firms that are using the humane killer have not lost their markets through the adoption of the killer. In this country to-day there are 13 bacon curing firms that compete with Marsh and Baxter and are using and have been using the humane killer while building up their enterprise. Let me quote from one of the biggest firms in the West country, Spear Bros, and Clark. These are gentlemen who have made their bacon, humanely killed bacon, so widely known, that the Birmingham Corporation buy the bacon in preference to that of Marsh and Baxter, who live on the spot, with all the powerful influence that they can wield on the spot. This is the quotation: point at issue. It is well-known in the trade that the reason why Denmark can export £27,000,000 worth of bacon and hams to this country is that by patient experiment and by research the Danes have devised a type of pig that is peculiarly suitable for curing, and acceptable to British taste.

If these gentlemen would spend their £10,000 in development and in research, in devising the right type of pig, and in advising our farmers as to what was that type, the farmers would produce it. But pig-breeding has become a rotten industry for the farmers of this country because of the curing industry, which will not give the farmers the necessary lead and help. We turn to the steel industry and say "Rationalise yourself." We turn to the cotton industry and say "Reorganise yourself." Why should we spare the bacon curing industry? Why should they not rationalise themselves and bring themselves up to date? They would find that by using that £10,000 for research work and investigation they would do far more to capture the Danish market than by fighting the march of progress.

They also say that as a result of the use of the mechanical killer the meat of the pig is either splashed or fevered and will not keep, and, that, therefore, both the home and foreign trade will suffer, but it is a fact well-known to the trade and one which these people would only try to put across an ignorant House of Commons—[ Laughter ].Yes, the House of Commons is ignorant on this subject but I hope it will not be so after this discussion. It is a fact, as I say, that the difficulty about this splashed beef and pork of which we hear so much now, was a difficulty in the trade years before the mechanical killer was ever invented. As my hon. Friends of the medical profession know, this splashing is caused by the bursting of small blood-vessels in the animal and this, in the opinion of scientists whose views I can quote if necessary, is due to the fear and terror caused to the animal as it is drawn along the circular chain. We say that, by the use of the humane killer, that fear and terror will be done away with, and that the result will be less splashing and less fevered conditions in pork and bacon. In any case, provided that the animal is struck within a reasonable time after being put in the pen, there is no reasonable chance of harm to the carcase. There is another quotation which I should like to give the House. I thought a quotation from a foreign source would be an advantage and this is what the director of the Gothenburg abattoir says:

killer is used at the moment and what is the result? In the last nine months of this year, 318,000 cattle, 512,000 sheep, and 205,000 pigs have been slaughtered in these seven districts by the humane killer, without a single complaint. Do not let us have Britain lagging behind in this reform. Do not let us have the taunt levelled at us that we seek to do but not to be done by. I shall conclude by drawing the attention of hon. Members to one last quotation. These words are imprinted in the stone above the entrance to a German abattoir:

I beg to second the Motion.

I am sure that whatever may be the views of individual Members as to the merits of this Bill they will all agree with me in congratulating the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has moved the Second Reading on his moderation, on his wit, on his sincerity, and on the obviously informed line which he has taken on this subject, as well as on the fairness of his arguments. The case which he has made is overwhelming and I propose to speak only briefly because we desire to give the opponents of the Bill the fullest chance of explaining their views. We wish, for instance, to give my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Lang) the fullest opportunity of explaining how he reconciles his opposition to this Bill with his other principles. Objection will probably be raised to the fact that the Mussulman and Jewish rituals are left out of the Bill, but I may point out that the opposition to the Bill centres mainly round the slaughter of pigs, and that the flesh of the pig is not eaten by Mussulman or Jew. Rather than that the methods described by my hon. and gallant Friend the Mover should continue, I would prefer to see all those who insist on having their bacon killed in this horrible and barbarous manner being forcedly converted to Mohammedanism.

As I say, I have no wish to dwell very long on a Subject which has been so ably dealt with, but for the benefit of my hon. Friends the Members for Oldham, Ormskirk (Mr. Ramsbotham), Holland Heath, Boston (Mr. Blindell), and Grimsby (Mr. Womersley), may I ask them to look again at the blue print, of which I think every hon. Member has had a copy. I wish to point out to them an additional objection to this method of stringing the pig up on a chain which moves it along, then sticking it and then immersing it, dead or alive, in the scalding vat. The additional objection to which I refer is that, in the case of a very heavy pig, the leg is sometimes torn off by the weight of the animal and the pig, still alive, falls down into the blood of the pig which went in front of it, with its leg wrenched from the body. My authority for that statement is a very respected former member of this House, Lord Noel-Buxton, and my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Lady Noel-Buxton) has given me authority to quote him as having actual knowledge of that terrible happening.

It is because all this machinery is installed and because there is a small vested interest involved that this wealthy firm has deluged hon. Members with objections to the Bill. The hon. and gallant Member has quoted the case of the firm of Messrs. Spears, who are very successful rivals of Messrs. Marsh & Baxter, and who use the humane killer. I could quote the experiences of butchers and slaughtermen in a very large way of business, some of the largest co-operative society branches in the country, and of the managers of public abbatoirs maintained by local authorities, who state conclusively that thousands of pigs are slaughtered by the humane killer, without any complaint whatever as to the meat being spoiled. I could quote the result of the actual experiments carried out by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, a reputable body and one which has not been accused of making false statements in this matter. I could quote actual experiments with bacon which had been killed by the humane killer being sent round the world by ordinary methods, and taken right through the tropics, and back again to England in perfectly good condition.

Those are the facts. We exempt for the time being the farmer who kills his own cattle for food and his own pigs for curing. The Measure only applies to the great slaughter-houses. I think the case for the Bill is overwhelming. Let me turn to the Parliamentary point of view. The objectors to the Bill propose to refer it to a Select Committee. I am very surprised to see some of the names: The hon. Members for Grimsby, Stone (Sir J. Lamb) and Holland-with-Boston are among them. I have seen and heard them guffawing when Ministers on this side of the House have announced a Select Committee of Inquiry.

Will the hon. Member excuse me? He has never heard me guffawing.

The hon. Gentleman is always so pleasant that perhaps when he has been smiling I have thought he was smiling because of the announcement of a Select Committee. The hon. Member for Stone has been among those who jeered.

I object to that statement. The hon. and gallant Member cannot quote an instance when I have jeered at anything of the kind. I was in favour of a Select Committee to deal with teachers' hours and of other Select Committees. I think the method is the best one for arriving at the truth.

Then the suggestion in the case of this Bill must be a subterfuge to prevent the Bill becoming law. The battle has been won by the speech of the Mover. If the Bill is to be dealt with in Standing Committee upstairs, I hope the Minister will be able to give the Government's blessing on the Bill and will be able to persuade the Cabinet to give Government facilities for its passage. The opponents of the Bill cannot answer the case of the Netherlands and their flourishing trade of £7,000,000 of pig food exported per year, and all killed by the humane method. Those who oppose the Bill are humane men, doing so from conscientious motives. The hon. Member for Holland-with-Boston looked horrified when he heard some parts of the opening speeches in favour of the Bill.

I was very surprised to hear some of it.

I am reminded of the story in "Punch" of the North of England vicar visiting in a poor district. He met a mother who had a little boy with her, and he asked her: "What is this little man going to be when he grows up?" "Well," says the proud mother, "I am going to make him into a slaughterman. He is that fond of animals that you can't keep him away from a slaughter-house." I believe there are humane slaughtermen who try to do their best to avoid unnecessary suffering. It is as much in their interests as anything that I support this Bill. It is not fair that they should be forced to take part in these barbarous methods of killing animals, merely in order that great dividends shall be made by this almost monopolistie company. Such methods were long ago out of date, and humane methods could be substituted for them without any loss to the trade.

I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:

The Mover of the Bill, in a speech of considerable length to which I think none of us in the least objected, gave a number of reasons for the adoption of the Bill. I am perfectly sure that no Member will have any kind of objection to the whole of a private Member's day, or any other day, being given to the discussion of an inquiry into the treatment of animals which have to be slaughtered for human food. The Mover says that we create the demand. Of course, we eat. If I believed what many hon. Members who support the Bill believe, I should be a vegetarian to-morrow, and I should not stop halfway. I should not be content with a tinkering Bill like this. I should be compelled to have nothing at all to do with it.

I was disappointed and surprised that the hon. and gallant Gentleman said that the House of Commons was ignorant upon this matter. That is a most remarkable pronouncement. I remember in the last Session that a similar Bill was upon the Order Paper, but was not reached owing to the length of time occupied by the previous Bill. When Mr. Speaker put the Question there were cries of objection. It was the hon. and gallant Member himself who stood up and said that nearly 500 Members were in favour of the Bill. So it must be that 500 people, the majority of whom are ignorant of the whole of the question, supported the hon. Member.

I am sorry to interrupt. Hon. Members supported the principle of the Bill. It does not naturally follow that they knew all about it.

We differ in the meaning of a very simple word. I thought that "ignorant" meant something more than the mere lack of knowledge of the technical details. I am sure it does. We have been asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull what is our opposition to this Bill. That is not only the matter which interests the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, or the Meat Traders' Association, but is one upon which individual Members of the House and citizens of the country are entitled to have their opinion. While my experiments cannot be traced over a quarter of a century, I have taken a considerable interest in this question for a few years. Anybody who has been parading the country and is accustomed to animals is interested in the question, and anxious about it. I wish to make it perfectly plain that whether hon. Members can understand it or not, it is a very open question.

There is a very large body of opinion in the country that is anxious for humane treatment, but a very large body that is by no means convinced that any of the methods that have been so far advocated as humane are operated with greater humanity. If I were called upon to give evidence upon them in a court of law with regard to sheep, I should say with the utmost conviction, from such observations as I have made—and they are pretty considerable—that I am satisfied in my own mind that it is very much more cruel to send a sheep to sleep before it is bled, than to attempt to stick it immediately. The animal is so small, the struggles are so violent, that the amount of time often taken to get sheep into position, is a serious factor, and I am perfectly sure that hon. Members of this House, anxious, as I know they are, for the welfare of these creatures, will agree with me that the real terror, the real suffering of all animals is the terror of being man-handled, and the most ingenious method of producing unconsciousness would not, at any rate at present, obviate that real suffering.

Anyone who has seen the sheep in the hands of the shearer knows the terror that the animal undergoes—a suffering much longer than that in the slaughterhouse. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Hon. Members may disagree, but I have no doubt about it. Ever since I can remember, every summer I have spent a considerable time in the fields and in the shearing places, and I would remind hon. Members of one of Wordsworth's delightful poems of English country life, in which he exhorts the sheep not to fear as have thought, but it is not to be, and the matter cannot be disposed of in pleasant phrases. The mover of the Second Reading produced his pole-axe—a formidable looking weapon. There are all sorts of weapons which are formidable, but I could not help contrasting the way he discussed it with the very gentle way he produced his pistol and talked about animals going to sleep. Not only that, but this gentle little killer retires into its proper place. I am afraid that under no method will you persuade animals to be led to the slaughter because there is a gentle little killer coming out to put them to sleep and retire.

Have you seen it?

I will give plenty of evidence of what I have seen. The hon. and gallant Gentleman ran away much too soon with the idea that he was the only person who had taken the trouble to investigate this matter. [HON. MEMBEES: "No."] If I am challenged, I say that I have taken the greatest care as to what I am going to say and as to what I have said. I do not want to discuss the Bill in general, because I want to come to the Amendment, but it does impress me very much to find that on the other side of the House there is a demand for an increase of municipal trading, because under this Bill local authorities may not only license slaughter-houses, but may, if they please, license and engage slaughtermen, and undertake the whole of the business. That is a principle which has been advocated from this side of the House for a very long time in more directions than one, but it is very interesting to find it to-day accepted by hon. Members on the other side, and also to find that the charges for this are to be placed upon local rates, despite the increase of rates. I should not oppose the Bill on that ground. If I thought it were a proper and desirable thing, I should hesitate very long to do so. I only hope sincerely that the same willingness to have a revolutionary method of municipal enterprise, the same willingness to place additional charges upon the rates, could be shown in other matters than matters of animals.

The hon. and gallant Member passed over much too lightly two difficult questions. One is the question of inspection. Both the Mover and the Seconder must know perfectly well that it is the law now that when an animal is about to be slaughtered, ample notification must be given to the sanitary inspector or responsible officer, so that there can be no secrecy and no prevention of proper inspection and, as I understand, the people engaged in the meat trade have been the people most anxious for proper inspection, both for their own protection and the protection of the public.

What is the argument against it?

I cannot be expected to put my case in five minutes. I will put it as briefly as I can. I was pointing out that under this Bill, as I understand, it would be possible for any person to be authorised by a local authority, and I should have thought we had quite enough inspection, and that constables and responsible officials were sufficient, but Clause 4 says:

"Any person authorised in writing by a local authority, and the officers of any society or institution."

There are very good officers and very bad officers of societies. There are people really anxious to render a service to the community, and there are people who are very anxious to spend as much time as possible in inquisitorial methods, and I would object to that Clause in any such Bill for all I was worth. Then there is the question of the exemption of Jews. I have always taken, and always will take, a very definite attitude in public life that people are entitled to the fullest exercise of their opinions, and if people hold views with which I do not agree, then I must consider them all the more carefully. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) said that this business of the Jews centred round the pig.

The serious opposition to the Bill centres round the pig. The Jews do not use pigs or kill pigs.

I think that a man, because he is a Jew, may have many excellent qualifications as a citizen, but I fail to see how a difference in nationality or, religious opinion can affect the skill of a man in an operation of this kind, and the Jewish method is either a humane method or it is not, and if it is not humane, then it is a very serious thing that a Bill should be introduced making a specific exemption of one category of people. But we have heard to-day what I, at least, have not heard before, for always, until now, I have understood that the anxiety for the exclusion of Jews was an anxiety to be fair to them, but to-day we were told by the mover of the Second Reading that it is Gentiles first and Jews after. That will be a matter which will cause serious surprise and comment throughout the country.

I want to put the reasons for the Amendment which is upon the Order Paper in my name and that of other hon. Members. I say at once that the case for the Bill is not made out. The hon. and gallant Member quoted the names of more or less eminent people in the scientific and veterinary world, but he will allow that it will be possible for us to quote an equally long list of people equally eminent in the scientific and veterinary world. My list is a greater list than that of the hon. and gallant Member, and I contend that where there is such a striking difference of opinion, where we have the opposing views of prominent and competent people without any personal axe to grind—because these people are not meat traders or members of a society which exists for the furtherance of the welfare of animals—and when name for name and extract for extract can be quoted, I suggest that it is manifectly absurd to say that the case is really made out. If I thought the case were made out, either from evidence that I have read or from experiments that I have seen, or from my casual entry here and there into abattoirs and slaughterhouses, if I thought that the case were proved that mechanical methods were superior, I would support this Bill for all I am worth, and no question of dividends or even of the price of meat or of competition would weigh with me at all. I am entitled to say that I am not of that opinion, and that before so radical and violent a change is introduced, there should be a complete inquiry, so that there can be no rankling sense of injustice after and a great body of people shall not be condemned unheard.

The hon. and gallant Member has been more careful than some of the advertisements that I have read in the Press, which urge people to rally to the support of the hon. and gallant Member to remove this blot from England. If it be a blot upon England, it is a blot which will remain for a considerable section of the community by the express provision for exemption in the hon. and gallant Member's Bill. If it be a blot upon England, it is a blot which means that every one engaged in a perfectly honourable and very necessary profession has a serious stigma placed upon him. Of course, I am not connected with any particular trader, nor have I the remotest connection either personal or family in any other way with the trade; and of course, I am not connected in any prominent manner, except as a very humble member, with any of the animal societies. I endeavour to look at this question from a clear common sense point of view, and I object that, before the case is proved, it should be conveyed by implication that a large number of responsible tradesmen, many of whom hold important offices in the administration of local authorities, and many of whom are known to me as excellent and important workers in religious, social and philanthropic work, are engaged in a trade, the manner and method of which is a blot upon the community. That has not been proved at all this morning.

We have had harrowing stories—and hon. Members are right in producing them if they believe them—of what happens to unfortunate pigs in a particular factory. I could quote to the House important evidence of influential people, such as Mr. Arthur Gofton, who stated—

When did he say it?

In the trial at Reading in 1922. That is not 25 years ago. In one instance six bullets were used and in another eight. I could quote many such cases. All I would say is that the hon. and gallant Member with his chamber of horrors on one side, and I and my hon. Friends with our chamber of horrors on the other side, prove nothing, except a real difference of opinion, which ought to be settled by a competent and impartial body.

I must take the case a little further, Recently, there has taken place an im- portant inquiry, with a report and decision, in the big municipality of Birmingham. Neither the Mover or Seconder have referred to that. I do not know why, because it is a very recent case. The date is the 2nd of this month. The Markets and Fairs Committee of the Birmingham City Council made a most exhaustive inquiry and produced one of the most competent reports I have seen in any connection; they made the fullest investigation not only on the spot, but abroad in various places. The committee was so anxious for humanity towards animals, that they announced that they were waiting for reports upon methods of stunning by electrocution, and that they would even now consider any new type of apparatus which was brought forward, and yet they recommended the Corporation not to adopt the particular measures which are incorporated in this Bill. On the 2nd of this month, that important municipality decided by a considerable vote—57 to 38—to adopt the report. I cannot believe that the Birmingham Markets and Fairs Committee, in going to the trouble that they did of making such exhaustive inquiries, are participating in what is a blot upon England.

That report will be dealt with.

I could not expect the hon. and gallant Gentleman to deal with everything in his speech, and, if I have implied that he purposely omitted reference to this report, I withdraw it. I want to draw attention to one or two things in the report, which has now been made public. Reference was made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman to Manchester, but he did not tell us that in every slaughterhouse in Manchester a pole-axe is kept in addition to the mechanical instrument. That pole-axe is kept for specific reasons. It is kept because very often the shot from the pistol does not make a puncture of sufficient size for the insertion of the cane.

If the hon. Gentleman is asking me for information, I can tell him why.

I am giving the hon. and gallant Gentleman information.

I would like to explain that Manchester is one of the corporations which has recently adopted the model by-law for the use of the mechanical killer, and, while the butchers are getting absolutely expert with the weapon, they are keeping a pole-axe there in case of a misfire, so that the slaughtermen may take comfort that their old weapon is somewhere hanging round.

That is the most important statement which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has made this morning. I have seen cases where a larger wound has had to be made in order to insert the cane. Now I am informed that the pole-axe is kept while the slaughtermen become expert in the use of the instrument which the hon. and gallant Gentleman recommends, and yet we heard from him in his speech about the fact that men with the pole-axe must now and then be nervous, and that they might make a mistake. Now we have it that this instrument, which nervous men might have to use, must be kept on hand while people are becoming proficient with another instrument. Hon. Members cannot have it both ways. I hope that the hon. and gallant Member is wrong. I hope for the sake of his own case that people are never nervous when they use a pistol, but I cannot see how anybody using a pistol is less inclined to be nervous. It is not a question of nerves. If the hon. and gallant Member had seen more experiments than he has he would know that it is a question of the skill of the operator, and ability to get the animal quiet. Those are the two factors which enter into it. The nerves of the man scarcely ever enter into the question.

And getting its head down to a ring. [ Interruption. ]

The hon. Member is giving me information which I assure him I already have. If his interruption were relevant to this issue I would deal with it. If he thinks his point is relevant, I hope he will have an opportunity to put it, because I want the fullest facts to be placed before the House, in order that we may come to a proper decision. I could refer to many other cases of large authorities who, though they have no axe to grind at all, have turned down proposals similar to those of the hon. and gallant Member who has brought this Bill before us this morning. I do not propose to do it, but I could refer to the figures of the Birmingham report. I will not do so unless that report is to be challenged, as I understand they are to be dealt with. I wonder if the hon. and gallant Member would just let me put this to him, because it is important? I would ask whoever is going to refer to the Birmingham report to give the House specifically the reasons for these remarkable figures as to the length of time occupied in bleeding and dying with the use of the mechanical apparatus, on the one hand, and the pole-axe method, on the other. There is great disparity between the figures, and the figures as they stand are proof positive that the method of killing advocated by the promoters of this Bill is a more painful method and a longer method than that which has hitherto been used. [ Interruption. ]

Then I am afraid I must give the figures. It is very unpleasant to have to deal with things like this, but the case must be presented. They are the cases at the Birmingham demonstration, which are well known, and at which members of the Royal Society were present, except at the pig demonstration. [ Interruption. ] Yes, after having raised no objection when they were invited, and after arrangements had been made, they refused at the last minute to allow themselves to take part. This is the report of a perfectly impartial committee of the Birmingham Corporation, and I must accept that report before I accept the views of members of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals or the Meat Traders' Federation. For some reason or other the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals withdrew at the last moment from the pig experiments. I will take the experiments at which they were present. As regards the slaughtering of beasts with a pole axe, in three cases the duration of bleeding was two minutes and in one case three. Where the animal was first shot it was three minutes in one case and in each of the other cases two and a half minutes. That is a total increase of one and a half minutes. These figures are much more important than these sweeping statements we have had about 600 blows to fell 400 oxen.

Was the animal not stunned during those 2½ or 3 minutes? From the way the hon. Member was put- ting it to the House anyone would think that the animal was bleeding all round Manchester all that time.

The hon. Member might, but nobody else would.

Is the hon. Member suggesting that after the shot from the humane killer the animal is not stunned and unconscious, but that during the whole of that two minutes the animal is still conscious and therefore suffering?

The questions which have been asked can be answered; I intended to deal with them. I do not think I am shirking any part of the case, and if I am given time I will deal with it. Obviously the animals were stunned. I am giving the duration of the bleeding.

Hear, hear!

Yes, but let me remind the hon. and gallant Member of what the Mover of the Bill has already pointed out to us. He has talked of two pigs that were stunned and were taken on, in the process of slaughter, to the scalding place and dropped in, and he thought by their movements they might still be alive. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen cannot have it both ways. Either this is reflexive action or it is conscious action; and a great deal of the sentimentality upon which the case has been built up has been based upon either a failure or a refusal to recognise the difference between reflexive action and conscious action. If either of the two hon. Members had thought of that we might have been spared quite unnecessary interruptions. At any rate the figures are here, and I am perfectly satisfied with them.

Would the hon. Member—

Order! Give him a chance.

I have endeavoured to be as reasonably brief as I can. I have taken nothing like the time Occupied by the Mover of the Bill. I am trying to put the case as fairly as possible, and I want the case I have put to be answered. Nobody in this House is more glad than I am that this High Court of Parliament has to-day constituted itself a court of mercy for dumb creatures, but I want it to constitute itself as a court of justice to fellow citizens; and I think the method by which there can be adequate and fair treatment without rankling grievances, is that of referring the subject to a Select Committee. A great many of us are anxious to relieve suffering and to eliminate suffering. In this matter we do not belong to one party or another. We desire to be convinced that the methods proposed will mean less suffering for the animals, and a Select Committee would be able to make the most thorough investigation. If that Committee, impartial as it would be, said after investigation that it was satisfied that these methods do eliminate suffering to any extent at all, I should be the first to go to the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore) and say, "Put my name down in support of your Bill." But my own experiments and my own observations have not led me to that decision at all in a single case, and I shall be glad to have the advice and the comfort of the decision of an impartial body making a full and proper inquiry. I should have thought such an inquiry would have been granted without any serious opposition at all.

As best I could do it, my task is accomplished. I will leave to other people to argue the question of damage to meat and blood splashing. I am not approaching the matter from that point of view at all. I am concerned with the question of my own responsibility as a consumer of flesh, my own responsibility to the animals who are forced to supply my modest demands, and I am concerned, also, about my responsibility to a great body of tradespeople—I have them in my own constituency—who have been, I do not say purposely, but as the result of this agitation, more or less stigmatized as a gang of cruel people who desire to perpetrate and continue methods which are almost too horrible to read about or to talk about. I resent that, and I ask this House, in the interests of the animals, in the interests of the trades-people, and in its own interest as a high court of justice to all parties, to say that this is a matter which ought especially to go to a Select Committee, and that the verdict of that Committee should be then binding upon us.

I beg to second the Amendment.

In doing so, I want to make my attitude towards the principle of this Bill quite clear. I am just as anxious that humane methods should be employed in the slaughter of all animals as any member who may be supporting the Bill, but it is because I realise that the methods in the Bill are probably not the most suitable methods and cannot achieve the object in view that I believe we ought to send the matter to a Select Committee so that the various bodies, representing influential and eminent opinion for and against the use of this mechanical killer may be heard, and the matter inquired into with a view to a definite and just understanding being arrived at between all parties. A Bill can then be presented which all parties in the House can support. The hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore), who moved the Bill, dealt with the matter in a very exhaustive way and seemed to anticipate everything that was going to be said against the Measure or in favour of the appointment of a Select Committee. He seemed to anticipate almost every opinion that would be expressed in the House, but he has not at all anticipated any statement which I may make on the matter.

There can be no two opinions in this House as to the absolute necessity for the adoption of the most humane methods for the slaughter of dumb animals, and I give way to no one in that matter. I welcome this discussion, because last Session we were placed in a difficult position. A Bill was put down for Second Reading which was supposed to afford to dumb animals the least cruelty in the way they were put to death, but we, who felt that the methods suggested were not the best, had no opportunity of stating our case. For that reason, I welcome this discussion. The hon. and gallant Member informed the House that this Bill affects 16,000,000 animals annually, and for that very reason we have to give very serious consideration to its proposals.

1.0 p.m.

The House must realise that it is quite easy to make out a case that suffering does exist, when these animals are put to death, and to play on people's sentimentality with regard to the slaughter of animals. All slaughter is absolutely objectionable, and any unnecessary cruelty in the slaughter of animals ought to be avoided, and avoided as soon as possible. Before the House accepts the statement that preventable cruelty does exist, and, before they accept the method in the Bill as compulsory in order to abolish that cruelty, they ought to hear and consider very carefully all the opinions put forward on behalf of alternative methods. It is to get an impartial body, which will consider these alternative methods and consider some of the statements made as to the cruelty that exists, that we propose that this matter should go to a Select Committee.

There are several matters which the House ought to consider. Most important we ought to give consideration to these helpless animals who have to put up with this suffering. It is a necessity that they should be put to death and that being so, we ought to provide as far as possible the most painless means of doing so. It is because I agree with that point of view that I believe we ought to know exactly what is the most painless method of putting these animals to death and ought not to rush hurriedly into adopting a method which may, in some ways, be even worse than the present method.

The questions the House has to decide are: first, whether preventable cruelty exists, and, if so, what are the causes that bring it about; and secondly, will the Bill eliminate such cruelty, if it does exist, and is the method of slaughter proposed in the Bill a better system than the one in operation at the present moment. The House will also be wise to consider the other elements in the case which are connected with the people who do the slaughtering. There are therefore many considerations to be discussed before the House gives this Bill a Second Reading. I agree with the hon. and gallant Member that, in isolated cases, cruelty has existed. I entirely agree that accidents may happen, that the human element does enter into this question, and that there may be incom- petence. He has admitted to us, by what he said about the Manchester slaughterhouse, that, if the method of killing proposed in the Bill be adopted, that element of accident and of incompetence will arise under the Bill just as it does now.

Though the mechanical killer may have certain advantages over the pole-axe so far as the slaughter of large animals are concerned, all this propaganda which is going on in the country from the society behind this Bill and all the things said about cruelty now were said 20 or 25 years ago when, as the Mover of the Bill admitted to-day, the mechanical killer was not a scientific instrument and was not as effective as it is to-day. Twenty years ago all the sentiment of the people of the country with regard to cruelty was being played on just as it is to-day, although twenty years ago it was not possible to make out a case that the humane killer would have prevented cruelty. Twenty years ago they had not such an effective instrument for the butchers and slaughtermen of this country; yet they were then just as emphatic in their declaration that the use of this instrument would eliminate cruelty and save untold suffering to animals. Those behind this Bill cannot have it both ways. If to-day their case is that there is no division of opinion with regard to the larger animals—as the Mover says, although I know there is a division of opinion as to whether the alternative method is the better method—then the propaganda of 20 years ago in favour of the use of the mechanical killer, which was not then as effective since it has been improved again and again, had not the same foundation that it has to-day.

We might go on to argue that, if cruelty exists, the extent of that cruelty is measured by a time factor, and without a time factor you will not have cruelty. We all know that in a slaughterhouse the animals are kept as far away as possible, but we know that they do become aware of the purpose for which they are there. When I speak of a time factor, I mean the time between the moment when we may expect the sheep, or pig, or whatever it is that is going to be slaughtered, to become aware of the intention and the time when un consciousness is actually brought about, and that time factor really decides the amount of cruelty entailed by the present methods of slaughter. So far as the larger animals are concerned, very much can be said for the use of the humane killer, and I agree that there is a volume of opinion in its favour in the trade so far as the larger animals are concerned, because of its advantages and because, perhaps, it is a little safer. But when you come to the smaller animals the story that must be presented to the House is an entirely different one.

We all know that it abominably cruel to kill, and no one likes it. I am certain that no hon. Member would enter a slaughter-house in order to amuse himself, but only because he wanted to find out the real facts, as the Mover of the Bill has done. It is one of the last places that I want to enter, and certainly the slaughter of animals is one of the last businesses in which I would like to be engaged. With regard to the smaller animals, we must remember that no mechanical killer will be instantaneously operative, as is suggested will be the case, unless, in the first place, the head of the animal is held solidly fast so that it cannot move in any way. What does it mean if one of these mechanical killers is used and the brain is not pierced? It means that you have to take a second shot, and, if you miss again, you have to take a third shot. Is there any difference between shots and the other things that are talked about? In the case of the poleaxe, if you miss there has to be a second blow, and if you miss again there must be a third. The head must be held fast so that the brain may be punctured by the first shot if there is going to be instantaneous unconsciousness.

I suggest that there is danger with the pistol if the head is not held or if there is a misfire—[ Interruption ]. I agree that you can do it. If you wanted to commit suicide, you would be able to do it, but this is a case of the operation of a more active mind against a less active mind, and the animal knows that the more active mind is going to operate something upon it, and it begins to struggle. In that struggle the time factor comes in, and there is tremendous difficulty in getting the animal into position before the instrument can be operated. It come to this, that, if the operation of the instrument is not successful, the knife has to be used, and, therefore, it is really a question of the use of the knife or the use of the pistol and the knife.

A good many quotations and figures have been given with regard to the time that elapses before actual unconsciousness takes place, and I think it is as well that the House should have some other opinions as well as those that have been collected either by or for the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs. I want to quote an experiment made at Birmingham, which seems to be the centre of most of these experiments with regard to the humane killer. A tremendous amount of interest is taken in Birmingham in the question of the slaughter of animals. In this experiment, animals were slaughtered by the two methods, in the presence of officers of the Ministry of Health, medical officers of health, sanitary inspectors, veterinary surgeons, members of the City Council, and others who were interested, and I want to give the House the opinion of the Chief Veterinary Officer of the Birmingham City Corporation with regard to what took place at this demonstration. Four sheep were shot by a specially trained demonstrator of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, so there can be no question about the demonstrator knowing how to handle this instrument; and two sheep were slaughtered in the ordinary way. After witnessing the two operations, the Chief Veterinary Officer of the Birmingham City Corporation gives his verdict in these words: verdict of the same gentleman, who understands these matters, and of whose opinion we ought to take some notice:

In the case of pigs, this gentleman's verdict—and this is very significant in view of what we have heard this morning with regard to pigs—was as follows. The Society's demonstrator slaughtered two pigs by this particular method, and the verdict was that neither pig appeared to be unconscious, while, in addition to that, owing to the struggling of the pigs after the mechanical instrument had been used, as long as three minutes elapsed between the stunning operation and the sticking operation. Of course it may be argued that between the stunning operation and the sticking operation the animal was unconscious, but this gentleman said that the pigs did not appear to be unconscious. [ Interruption. ] You may call it reflex action if you like, but this eminent gentleman said that the pigs did not appear to be unconscious. I know that the answer is that it was only reflex action, and that the pig was in fact unconscious, but you have two opinions—you have the opinions which have already been brought forward, and you have the opinion that I bring forward; and I ask, in common fairness to all the interests, that those opinions should be sifted by a Select Committee, in order that the House may know definitely which is the correct opinion upon which it can act. Speaking generally of the same demonstration, this gentleman said his conclusion was—and I want the House to mark these words, because I am dealing with the humane point of view and with no other point at the moment—his conclusion was that:

Would the hon. Member give the date of that quotation?

I believe it was in 1922, that is to say, eight years ago. I am quite prepared to say that, although it was eight years ago, many of the statements which this gentleman made still hold good to-day. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] He said that with regard to calves the present method was the better one, and it is for hon. Members to disprove that. [ Interruption. ] They cannot disprove it. They may disprove it to their own satisfaction, but, although I can prove things to my own satisfaction, I am afraid I cannot always convince the general body of Members of this House; and, while the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs and those associated with him can, I am certain, prove to their own satisfaction that there is no possible argument against this Bill, they have utterly and entirely failed to satisfy me. I believe that there is a sincere division of opinion on these matters.

I want to take the hon. and gallant Member up into his own country. I want to take him to Glasgow, where there was an experiment with regard to sheep. Twenty sheep were killed by the use of the mechanical killer and 20 by the ordinary method as practised in public abattoirs. I have here, not my opinion, but the opinion of some of those who were present. It says that General Charteris and the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ayr (Col. Moore), were present and an agreement was arrived at between all parties as to when the sheep should be considered dead. Twenty were killed one by one by the humane killer, and the total period before the agreed stage of death was reached for all the sheep was 15 minutes 15 seconds. After that, 20 sheep were killed in the ordinary way, and the period was only 5 minutes 35 seconds, a difference of 10 minutes, which seems almost impossible to my mind. I do not say that it is right or that it is wrong, but it is the opinion of an expert man who was present and the House ought to give as much respect to his opinion as to any that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has given.

I was interested in a letter that appeared this week in a Sheffield paper with regard to pigs. We had had so many facts, figures and opinions given by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that it is necessary for the House to know that there is a whole volume of opinion which refutes his statements—[ Interruption ]. It is not butchers. I have not quoted a butcher. I have quoted eminent men. I have a letter here written by the Secretary of the Sheffield Pork Butchers' Association, he may be interested but he has an opinion. At the opening of the new city abattoir, the authorities requested an investigation by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals with a view to putting into operation the optional by-law 9 (b). The effect of putting that into operation, and including the slaughter of pigs, has been that there is a difference as between 60 seconds per pig under the old method and 4 minutes under the new method. The hon. and gallant Gentleman may say he can refute that, but give us an opportunity. We want a Select Committee so that he can refute it. If it can be established to the satisfaction of an impartial body that the new method ought to be adopted, I will give wholehearted support to the findings of the Committee, but I am not satisfied, and I am going to accept this man's statement. Whatever anyone else may say, it is entitled to be sifted to the bottom to see whether it is true or not.

The hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lang) referred to a recent demonstration and decision of the Birmingham Corporation with regard to the by-law. They refused to put it into operation because, in their judgment, the existing methods of slaughter were not only speedy and humane, but were necessary in the interest both of hygienic food and of the trade itself. If the City Corporation of Birmingham, after exhaustive enquiries, say the present methods of slaughter are humane and speedy, what right have we, without any enquiry, to rush in and say they do not know what they are talking about and we must teach them their business? I could go on to my own town. Year after year resolutions are before the Council to put the by-law into operation. I attended a demonstration arranged in conjunction with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Again, the Grimsby Corporation, as the result of what they saw, say this method does not guarantee that cruelty is eliminated. There are scores of other matters that I could bring before the House and there are volumes of other opinions that could be quoted, but I want other hon. Members to have an opportunity of speaking. I am not as bad even now as the hon. and gallant Gentleman. If he had an hour and a quarter to convince the House that he has a case, surely his opponents ought to have half an hour. I do not intend the bore the House as long as he did. I beg the hon. and gallant Gentleman's pardon, I withdraw that expression. He may have overloaded his case before he sat down, but it was a very interesting speech.

It has been said that one particular firm, whose name has been mentioned, is raising all the opposition to this Bill as far as pigs are concerned. I want to refute that entirely. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said a report had reached him that this firm had put up £10,000 to fight the Bill. A report has reached me that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has put up a wonderfully big sum in order to push the Bill forward. It is quite right that they should. There is no point about it. I have the opinion of another firm with regard to this time factor again. Their experience is that there is nothing nearly so humane as the knife. Where pigs have been killed with the humane killer, they have had carcases with as many as five and six bullets in the head and shoulders.

These things sound strange to the ears of people who have come to believe that undue cruelty is being practised and who have not had an opportunity of inquiring into the methods that are adopted. They seem strange to my ears. It is because they seem so strange that we do not rush into the alternative method. It is because they seem so strange, because one can hardly believe them, that we want to have a Select Committee in order that these statements may be inquired into and a report presented to the House. If such a report was favourable to the use of the mechanical killer, no one would give more hearty support than I should to any Bill that was introduced, but until I am satisfied, I am bound to be sceptical of some of the things that are put forward. I have a long list of eminent gentlemen to frame up against the eminent gentlemen that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has brought before the House.

I have one last quotation, which comes from a bacon factory in my own native town, whose growth I have watched from its inception. It is the North Herts Bacon Factory, Ltd. This is what they say of the use of this particular killer with regard to the human element, to cruelty, and to the difficulties experienced in producing bacon which can be cured by the English method and presented to the public as a saleable article: the local authorities and say, "You do not know your own business; we shall transact it for you, and we are going to compel you to adopt this method"?

The reason for this state of things is, that there is a great number of local authorities who would willingly allow themselves to be brought into line with the rest if only a law was passed. They have to consider local interests, which prevent them from introducing a by-law of their own free will. We ask this House to bring them all into line.

My answer to the hon. and gallant Member is that I am not prepared to believe that we have large corporations up and down the country which are afraid of local interests. I believe that the vast majority of the members of these bodies are public-minded men who devote themselves to carrying out public business. I do not think that local interests enter into the matter at all. These men ought not to be there if they are not there in the public interest.

I would ask the Minister of Health to hesitate before he recommends this House to give a Second Reading to the Bill. There are many other matters in the Bill to which I object, but I agree that in Committee such matters can be thrashed out. The general principle of the Bill has to be thrashed out here at the Second Reading. I would ask the Minister to give consideration to the reports which he must have had from all over the country to the effect that there is a very large volume of opinion against this Bill, and to consider whether it would not be the wiser course to adopt the suggestion of the appointment of a Select Committee. When a report of such a committee was presented, I am sure that every Member of the House would act upon it.

I wish to look at the general situation in regard to this problem. I am not going to argue the case either of one side or the other, but I am going to look at the situation as we now know it. In the first place, in Scotland there is an Act on the Statute Book which goes some way to deal with this problem. It has been on the Statute Book for two years, and as far as I know it has worked pretty satisfactorily. I have not heard that there are great complaints against the working of the Act. We have to recognise also that there is a substantial number of local authorities who have adopted by-laws of one kind or another requiring something to be done in the direction of the humane slaughter of animals. Local authorities to the number of 530 have adopted such by-laws, 400 of them the model clause 9B, and the others clause 9A. I think it shows the trend of public opinion in local government upon this topic, when it is realised that there is a substantial and growing number of local authorities who have adopted the humane slaughter of animals, including pigs in a very large number of cases.

The chief opposition to the by-law as regards the pig is practically confined to the bacon curers. There may be butchers, but, broadly speaking, such opposition as there is to the by-law regarding the use of the humane killer in respect of pigs is from the bacon curer We have now, however, a very large body of opinion in favour of the practice. I understand that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals last year disposed of 1,800,000 cartridges. That is a very substantial number. I am told also that this year the sale of cartridges for this purpose, according to the evidence of the manufacturers, for the first eight months of the year, is 40 per cent. higher than it was last year. I mention these facts in order to show that this is a growing movement, that there is a large body of public opinion behind it, and that the body of public opinion is not confined to the local authorities.

There is a change in the attitude of the people who represent the meat trade. At the conference of the National Federation of Meat Trades Association last year it was agreed that there were, as there used not to be, more efficient mechanical instruments now available, and they agreed to the slaughter of the larger animals by means of mechanical instruments. We are narrowing down the problem now. We have an important interest which has, within the last 12 months, conceded the point about humane killing, at any rate, as far as large animals are concerned. That, perhaps, may not be final. I understand that the attitude of the opponents to this Bill is not one of complete hostility to the point of asking their supporters to divide against it. I understand that they will be prepared to accept the Bill as far as large animals are concerned, and therefore all that is left, is a much narrower problem.

I do not want to examine the Bill in detail, but I think I am right in saying that the tone of the House is, on the whole, in favour of the Second Reading of the Bill. Having obtained the Second Reading of the Bill they have only begun their trouble. The problem that is left is a practical problem and one that ought to be solved on the basis of common agreement, because it is quite clear that if the problem cannot be settled by agreement there is no hope of any legislation. It is a problem which calls for a certain measure of co-operation and give and take. I do not want to make any proposals about it, but there may have to be substantial alterations in certain Clauses of the Bill. It may well be that in the interests of the Bill the hon. and gallant Member who moved it will be as reasonable as he was in regard to an earlier Bill that he brought in, or he may not. It seems to me that the trend of opinion is in favour of legislation of this kind, but there may be some doubt as to how far the legislation ought to go. If the House gives the Bill a Second Reading, I think that those who are interested in it had better tear up their pieces of paper, with cases and all the details as to the minutes animals have or have not survived, and see if there is a possibility of arriving at an agreed basis which would render the Bill more or less non-controversial.

Those who are in contact with the agricultural industry or who represent farming areas necessarily feel special anxiety and responsibility in this matter. Whatever our views may be on this particular proposal, we are all out to bring about the maximum avoidance of suffering, but agricultural Members must also bear in mind the necessity of doing nothing which will either hamper or cause loss to the agricultural industry. It has been proposed that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee to decide which method of slaughter is the most humane. A Select Committee, no doubt, could consider the bearing of the Bill on agriculture, but the argument has been that they ought to decide as between the old and the new method from the point of view of animal suffering. I think that most of us have made up our minds on that point. We have had a great many opportunities of doing so, due to the enthusiastic and devoted pioneer work of the hon. and gallant Member who has brought this Bill forward and who has worked so hard in recent years. Most of us have probably come to the conclusion that the hard cases which have been quoted by the opponents of the Bill do not really carry us very far.

I think the common-sense view of most people is that although the old methods in the hands of an expert may cause very little suffering, they are nothing like so fool proof as the humane killer. If we adopt that view, we are faced with the problem as to how far we can apply this method in order to get common agreement for legislation. Very harrowing details have been given to us of the suffering involved in slaughter. I am afraid that suffering is inevitably involved in any form of destruction. I am obliged to confess that inevitably there is a good deal of suffering on the farm in connection with inevitable operations upon livestock. Millions of animals suffer from the inevitable operation of castration, but public opinion has never demanded that animal husbandry should for that reason be forbidden. It is very easy to allow our imaginations to carry us away. Life, whether human or animal, is inseparable from a certain amount of suffering. I am glad to think that animals probably, on the whole, suffer less than human beings because they are free from a great deal of the anticipation, which is a more serious matter for us. Therefore, there probably is in the case of animals a larger credit balance in favour of pleasure as opposed to pain. But slaughter must be very unpleasant, though it is unavoidable while this part of the human race at least finds it necessary to consume animal flesh. That does not, however, in any way justify any unnecessary animal suffering, but it does mean that we must not let our sentiment carry us beyond our goal.

I think the hon. and gallant Member has shown wisdom in drafting the Bill when he recognises necessary limitations. He has made an exception in favour of the Jewish method. I think that can be probably justified on its merits. The Jewish method of the severance of the carotid artery is clearly quite different in its effect as to sensibility from the ordinary method pursued to bleed the carcase in slaughter. If there were not such a strong case as I believe exists, it is unreasonable for the Mover of the Amendment to taunt my hon. and gallant Friend that by having made this concession he is ashamed of his own proposal. I have no doubt that in the case of cattle the case is absolutely proved. The model by-laws have been adopted by a large number of authorities and I am sure that public opinion is behind its universal application. In the case of sheep the matter is rather less certain. We have heard a good deal about the difficulties of holding small animals, especially lambs. There was a good deal of opposition to the Scottish Bill from butchers, on the ground of the danger from splashed meat. I have been endeavouring to find out what has been happening in Scotland. This week there are a great many Scottish farmers in London in connection with the Smithfield Show, but I have not been able to get anything but negative evidence. No one seems to have very much information as to the working of the Act in Scotland, but nobody could tell me that it is working badly. Seeing that sheep have been slaughtered by this method in Scotland for about 14 or 15 months, we inevitably should have heard by now from the general public, the farmers or the butchers if any of the anticipated difficulties had proved well founded. I cannot believe that there really has been any splashed meat or any other considerable difficulty.

Pigs are a much more doubtful case. We have been told about the conditions in Glasgow, but I do not think they really give us any line on the special problem of bacon factories. It is not at all the case that only Messrs. Marsh and Baxter, Limited, are alarmed. I could give a very long list of bacon curers who are genuinely alarmed at the proposals of the Bill—there is one large co-operative factory in my own constituency—and I do not think that we can ignore this fact. An inquiry might find a way of dealing with the question, but at this stage we cannot override it. The bacon factory is a most important outlet for the pig industry. Most of us want to see this side of agriculture greatly increased. We have all the pork trade, and any increase must be on the side of the bacon factories. I dislike to see £30,000,000 of Danish bacon and hams coming into this country, and it would be difficult for agricultural members to vote for a proposal which in the opinion of the bacon factories would not only prevent them regaining a larger control of our own markets but greatly prejudice them in competition with the Danish bacon curer, who is not subject to any such regulation.

I am not, however, on account of the bacon difficulty inclined to support the proposal that the Bill should go to a Select Committee because that would be the end of the Bill. We know what facilities exist for a private Member's Bill. If it gets through Committee upstairs in time to be considered on Report during the four days which are allotted it has a good chance of getting through, but if we send the Bill to a Select Committee it has to go through its Committee stage in this House before it can be taken on Report, and it is quite out of the question, unless the Government give time, for the Bill to suffer the delay of going to a Select Committee, then to run its chance of Committee stage in the House, and be considered in time for it to receive the facilities on Report stage which are given to private Members' Bills.

I shall oppose the Amendment, but at the same time I leave open my own action on Third Reading and Report stage according to the way the Committee upstairs treats the problem of pigs. What I should really like to see is that the Committee should make a special provision to exempt bacon factories and at the same time that the Government should set up a Select Committee to examine this particular problem unconnected with the Bill. I do not think it is reasonable to rush the question at the moment, nor do I think that we should sacrifice nine-tenths of the Bill just because we cannot include bacon factories. If we could get the Bill, leaving out bacon factories, a Select Committee might resolve all these difficulties and doubts and enable agreed legislation to be brought in at some future time. My advice to agricultural members is to support the Second Reading and keep open their action on later stages until they see that there has been a satisfactory solution of the particular problem of the bacon factories.

I have listened with great interest to the speech of the right hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Guinness) and speaking as one of his ardent supporters I am a little disappointed at the suggestion he has put forward. He gave very powerful arguments against the application of this Bill to the slaughter of pigs on the ground of the effect it would have on the bacon curing industry. I suggest as strong a case for a Select Committee investigation can be made on the question of the killing of sheep as on the killing of pigs. The Minister of Health has himself suggested that as there is a certain amount of agreement between all parties concerned it should not be impossible for a conference to be held to come to some agreement as to what shall be omitted from and, what shall be included in the Bill.

As far as I am concerned, I am quite prepared to meet the promoters of the Bill and its supporters and discuss this matter. The same offer was made last year and an agreement might have been entered into if the promoters had been prepared to get down to the real thing, but, unfortunately, in dealing with this question far too much heat has been brought into the argument and there has been far too much in the way of threats on hon. Members from people who are interested. I deprecate the kind of action we have experienced during the last few weeks. We have been threatened with all sorts of pains and penalties if we disagree even with a single Clause of the Bill. Suggestions have been made as to the way in which the Bill has been opposed, but I must suggest that the way it had been supported has not been by any means beyond question.

There is no doubt that all hon. Members are in favour of trying to mitigate pain on animals. The question is whether the method suggested in the Bill does eliminate cruelty in the killing of animals. That is a point which has never been definitely settled. We have had quotations and opinions from various people and we have heard a great deal about it to-day, but still we cannot form any definite opinion without further investigation. It is not my intention to deal with these opinions but rather to speak from my own experience as a member of a local authority which has to deal with slaughter-houses and the inspection of meat. The latest information as to the number of local authorities which have adopted the model by-law is that 335 have adapted it and 1,050 have refused; I happen to be a member of a local authority which has refused to put this by-law into operation.

They live on fish.

Yes, and fish is food for the brain. My council is so brainy that they will not take the statement of the society or the butchers. When I was mayor of the town some few years ago I was in favour of the suggestion of the society because I had received representations which rather impressed me. I instituted a demonstration, and we asked the society to send their most skilled man to the town so that we could witness the exact method, and the butchers had to produce their man so that we could see what sort of a show he could make. We also invited the Jewish Rabbi to arrange a kill according to the Jewish method. So we witnessed the whole of the operation. All the members of the Health Committee assembled. Great interest was taken in the matter throughout the town. We saw the three methods at work. We held a meeting immediately after while the whole matter was fresh in our minds, and unanimously it was decided not to adopt this model by-law. Only within the last two months a resolution to put the by-law into operation was turned down by an overwhelming majority. We came to that conclusion. I came to it, from what I actually saw.

I am goig to admit this: That as far as the killing of the larger animals was concerned, on that occasion there was nothing to choose 'between the two methods—the pole-axe method and the method employed by the slaughterman of the Society, who was an experienced expert. The slaughterman appointed by the local butchers' association was a youth of 18, and he had a very big and sturdy trail upon which to operate. He brought it down with the first blow. I admit that the expert from the Society, using the mechanical killer, brought his beast down almost but not quite as quickly. When it came to the sheep, in spite of the fact that there was an expert operator working, he made a sorry mess of things, and our members were so horrified that they said that on no account, whatever happened in regard to the larger animals, would they ever consent to such a thing as the use of this instrument even in the hands of an expert.

When was that?

It was in 1923. The hon. and gallant Member is always asking that question, and I know he will say, "Ah, yes, but we have brought out a much better instrument since then." What is the instrument that he has here now? It is not the R.S.P.C.A. instrument.

We do not advocate any particular instrument.

2.0 p.m.

When these demonstrations have taken place we have had presented to us the R.S.P.C.A. killer. We have the Greener killer and the captive bolt killer. Here is the killer which has been introduced in the last year or two, and I am told that it is much better than the other method. I do not think that even my hon. and gallant Friend would dare to bring forward a Bill in support of the older method. He produced some exhibits to-day. I have here as an exhibit, the skull of a small animal that was shot by the Greener killer, and if I showed it to hon. Members they would be horrified at it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"] One can bring a pole-axe or anything one likes into the House. But let us get to the facts. I have also here the skull of a beast that was shot by the captive bolt system—three shots and then the pole-axe, and by one blow the animal was stunned. There are arguments that can be used both ways on this question of cruelty. Many hon. Members have not seen these demonstrations. We tried to organise one at the Garden City, but Members did not come along. There is a strong case made out for a thorough investigation of the whole question. I am satisfied that if after that investiga- tion a report was presented to the House and it was shown unmistakably that the method suggested in this Bill is the humane method—that has not been proved up to now—not a single Member would oppose it. I want to deal with one or two of the arguments that have been brought forward. I was astounded to hear the Mover of the Second Reading of the Bill make the statement that a certain firm was spending £10,000 in opposing the Bill.

It was reported that that was so.

The hon. and gallant Member now says that a report has been circulated that £10,000 has been spent. It is absolutely and obviously unfair to say "I have heard a report of this and that." What we want is the facts.

I say—and I hope this will satisfy my hon. Friend—that Mr. Marsh himself, the head of that firm, told me personally that he was prepared to spend thousands to obstruct the Bill.

Now we are getting another statement entirely. The hon. and gallant Member started by saying that a report had reached him that £10,000 was to be spent. He now says that Mr. Marsh has informed him that he would be prepared to spend thousands against the Bill. I am not concerned at the moment either with Mr. Marsh or my hon. and gallant Friend. I do not believe for a moment that there is any question of such a sum ever being offered to anyone to be spent in any way in dealing with this question. It is an argument that ought not to have been allowed to enter into our discussions. Let me turn to the question of bacon. My hon. and gallant Friend makes great play of the fact that in Holland they use the mechanical killer, and he asked why is it that they can send so much bacon to this country if they use that killer? Let us take the facts. Take the case of Danish bacon. The pigs in Denmark are not killed by the mechanical killer; they are killed by the method that we adopt at the moment in this country. The imports of Danish bacon into this country last week were 65,173 bales, and of Dutch bacon during the same week 3,471. Roughly speaking, for every side of Dutch bacon 20 sides of Danish bacon come into this country.

Why is there such a larger demand for Danish bacon? The inferior quality of the Dutch bacon as compared with the Danish is clearly reflected in the figures that I have quoted. In the open market the Dutch bacon fetches £8 per ton less than the Danish bacon. The imports of Danish bacon in the aggregate are more than five times the amount sent to this country by all other foreign countries. Why is it that those in authority in Denmark have allowed the use of the old method of killing rather than the use of the mechanical killer in the case of bacon that is to be sent into this country? It is because they know that bacon becomes blood-splashed if the pig is shot instead of being killed by the ordinary method. Turning to exhibits again, I have here a sample of splashed meat. [ Laughter ] It is no subject for laughter if it has to be sold, and I am speaking for the moment from the tradesmen's point of view. These two pieces of meat I have here are not cured; they are fresh pork from a shot animal. I ask hon. Members to look at them. Another sample which I have here is meat killed in the ordinary way, and these samples prove that blood-splashing takes place.

I suggest that before the House commits itself to such a drastic method as is proposed in the Bill these matters ought to be considered. Bearing in mind that pigs are excluded from the Scottish Bill and that, even in Denmark, they have had to bring in special regulations to retain the British market; bearing in mind that no one could hope to sell the kind of meat I have just shown to the House and that it would be a great loss to those dealing with it, surely hon. Members must agree that a good case has been made out for a thorough investigation of this subject before we legislate upon it. We ought not to legislate in the dark. The hon. and gallant Gentleman spoke a great deal about Holland, but even in Holland the pigs are man-handled in the same way as in this country, and after being stunned they are stuck. If there is any cruelty in this man-handling, then it is to be found in Holland as well as in our own country. I should like to hear from the supporters of the Bill what they are prepared to offer in the way of reasonable amendments. I think it has been proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that there are certain things in the Bill which ought to be dealt with—in Committee if you like—but on this point we have heard nothing as to the attitude of the promoters of the Bill.

The Minister of Health has said that while, in the past, butchers opposed the proposal of the Bill they have now come to this point—that, as regards the larger animals, they have no objection, but they think the smaller animals ought to be excluded from such a Bill. Why has that opinion come from the Federation of Meat Traders. I do not admit for a moment that it is because they agree that their present method is more cruel than the use of the mechanical killer. They realise that there has been a very intensive and skilfully conducted agitation in favour of the mechanical killer. I am not going to say a word against those responsible for that agitation. They have been fighting for an object which they regard as right, but undoubtedly that agitation has influenced public opinion and there is a trend of public opinion in favour of the use of some method other than the present method. Realising that if any body of men stand against public opinion there is bound to be friction the meat traders are prepared to concede the point as regards the larger animals, if the promoters of the Bill are prepared to meet them as regards the smaller animals. They believe it to be more cruel to use the mechanical killer on the sheep and the pig and they also believe that it is detrimental to the keeping quality of the meat, quite apart from what I have just demonstrated to the House.

It is said that this method is used on the sheep in Scotland and that the meat comes to Smithfield Market and that there has been no complaints about it. My information is different. I was present at a meeting of an agricultural committee upstairs at which representatives of the Scottish traders who send meat to Smithfield Market gave their experiences under the Scottish Measure. They admitted that they had no complaint in reference to the larger animals, but they said that as regards sheep, the new method had been detrimental to the keeping quality of the meat. They pointed out that the meat had to go from Scotland to Smithfield and they said that, particularly in the summer time, there was a great difference between those sheep and the sheep slaughtered by the old method. Great play has been made with the fact that the City of London Corporation have put the model by-law into operation.

The London County Council.

I thought the hon. and gallant Member referred to the City of London Corporation.

No, I said that the City of London Corporation had asked for this Bill.

Whether it is the City of London Corporation or the London County Council does not affect the argument that animals killed in the London area immediately go to the market and can be sold within 24 hours. But in connection with animals which have to be sent a considerable distance to the market, the question of the keeping quality of the meat is very important from the public health point of view. It has been admitted that the finest lamb and mutton in the world comes from New Zealand and Australia. New Zealand meat in particular is quoted as the finest in the world, and I think that, next to good home-killed meat, it is the finest. Why have they not adopted the mechanical killer in Australia or New Zealand? Why has it not been adopted in the Argentine and in the United States? I ask hon. Members to consider the number of animals slaughtered in the United States and the Argentine for meat which is exported to this country.

I admit what has been said by the hon. and gallant Gentleman—that we want to be in the forefront of reform. I like to think that my country is in the forefront of reform. [HON. MEMBEBS: "Oh!"] Yes, and I have been one of those who have advocated progress in political thought, but not revolutionary progress. I do not believe in taking a leap in the dark. I want to see where I am going and I want to see that we are not going to do more harm than good by taking such a leap in the dark as is now proposed. Surely in those great countries which I have mentioned, the people are just as humanitarian as we are, and just as anxious to avoid the infliction of cruelty on animals. The fact that they have not adopted this method shows that they are not convinced that it is really a humane method, and they certainly know that it is detrimental to the keeping qualities of the meat. I can produce medical evidence to show that meat from an animal which has not been properly bled can be a source of ill-health to human beings.

All these things ought to receive the fullest consideration and investigation, and the only method by which you can secure that end is by appointing a Select Committee of this House who will hear witnesses and deal impartially with the points which have been raised. The hon. and gallant Member himself does not suggest that this Bill should come into operation for another 18 months, because, he says, it is necessary to teach these men the use of this instrument. Just previously he told us that one of the great virtues of the instrument was that anyone could operate it without difficulty and without danger. But he has provided in his Bill for a delay of 18 months. I suggest that there is no hurry, that there is no reason why this Bill should be rushed through during the next, month or so, and that a Select Committee could consider the matter and report quickly to this House, because the evidence is already collected to a very large extent, and Only requires to be put into form and sifted. I think there would be no doubt that it would, by sending the Bill to a Committee.

The late Minister of Agriculture has gone so far as to recommend his friends to vote for the Second Reading. That has placed me in a rather awkward position. The promoters of the Bill should let us know at once where they stand on the question of Amendments. The Minister has said that the Government are not prepared to give time. If we do not get reasonable concessions and some agreement between the parties interested, and so get an unopposed Bill, there will be no chance of getting the Measure through this Session. I know how the Government are fixed with their own Bills. We are not opposed to the idea of eliminating cruelty where possible, but we are not convinced that the case has been made out for, at any rate, dealing with the smaller animals by this method. It has not been definitely proved that it would not be detrimental to the interests of agriculture and of those who sell the meat to the public. If those in charge of the Bill are prepared to meet us in conference, I will listen to anything in the way of reasonable concession. Possibly we can come to an agreement whereby the Bill can go forward and not run the risk of never becoming the law of the land at all.

The most serious thing about this matter is that the evil goes on in the smaller slaughter-houses owned by private butchers. I was for some years a member of the police force and I had opportunities, such as the police have, of examining things that went on in the town. I can say that the Mover of this Bill did not exaggerate in the very least when he described the cruelties that are enacted in the meat trade. The last speaker produced skulls with hole where shots had entered. He did not produce the bones of other parts of the animal which had probably been hit by the horrible instrument he mentioned. After the spike has been driven in to the larger animals, I have seen a boy employed with a cane to stir up to brains of the beast so that it could be bled more rapidly. The time factor was an important one. I also saw the cruelty practised in the smaller slaughter-houses. Sheep were brought in the night before and they stayed there trembling all night among the smell and blood and shivering with fear. I have often seen the knife used on sheep and lambs. I am prepared to recommend more modern methods.

If hon. Members who are opposing this Bill would take a vote of the workers of this country they would find in every town that the people want up-to-date abattoirs, not only in order to eradicate cruelty to the animals, but so that the people themselves may know exactly what they are eating. One hon. Member said that poisons are set free in the animals by wrong methods of killing. The same kind of thing may happen if sheep or cattle are kept within the smell of blood. The same thing happens in a colliery district. When you have killed a pony, you cannot get a live pony to pass that spot for a long time. I do not know anything about the scientific side of the matter, and I would like to have doctors' opinions as to the effect that fear has upon flesh. We have been fighting for years for an abattoir in our district, and our opposition has come from a powerful body of butchers who nearly always command the town council. Why are they afraid to have an open abattoir?

I was hoping that the Minister would take a strong stand. This question ought not to be a political matter at all, in the interests of common decency, of the animals themselves and more than ever in the interests of the people that have to eat them. If it is to apply to Scotland, why cannot it apply to England? Public opinion on this matter is going forward by leaps and bounds, and all the opposition will not stop it. I was surprised to hear from my friend the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lang), that whenever there is to be a killing the inspectors are notified. The hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) is oldfashioned enough to know—and the fish will have had its effect upon him in this respect—that in a large town, while you may send your inspectors to the abattoirs there will be 30, 40, or 60 privately-owned slaughter-houses that you cannot sufficiently inspect.

I am also aware of the fact that notification has to be given to the local authorities. An hon. Member says "formally.' Inspectors use wise discretion in this matter, and there has never been a case within my knowledge of anything being wrong in a slaughter-house that has not at once been put right.

Suppose that everybody is killing on Wednesday morning. You have not inspectors enough to go through the whole of the town. I remember an inspector of tuberculosis telling me that he had condemned 980 odd stock as being tubercular, and he had only visited 16 butchers' shops. He left the other shops open to sell what they liked. The Amendment proposing a Select Committee is a respectable way of getting out of the business altogether. [ Interruption. ] I am talking about the political killer, or the political trickery. I hope that we are going to stand by the Bill—the Bill or no Bill—and I hope that we have sufficient support on all sides of the House to make it a non-political question, so that we can get along with what, I think, the whole country is finding fault with, namely, the lack of cleanliness and hygiene.

The hon. Gentleman used the word "trickery." I am sure he did not mean that.

I withdraw the word "trickery" and say "old-fashioned."

The hon. and gallant Member, who moved the Second Reading of the Bill in an eloquent speech, suggested that there was a certain amount of ignorance in the House of Commons about the question we are debating to-day. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that if any candidates in Scotland at the last election were ignorant before, they certainly had to brush up their knowledge owing to the activities of my hon. and gallant Friend. With regard to myself, personally, I have been engaged in the agricultural industry all my life, and I am one of those who feel very profoundly that everything should be done to eliminate the unnecessary suffering of animals. But I am not convinced that we have yet arrived at a stage where we can definitely and emphatically state that we have a method of slaughter that can both reduce the element of fear and the element of pain. I am inclined to agree with the speakers who have emphasised to-day that the question of fear is as important as, if not more important than, the question of actual pain.

With regard to Scotland, this House knows that we have had an Act in operation for 15 or 16 months. I agree with the ex-Minister of Agriculture that the evidence one sees in Scotland is rather of a negative nature. There are, no doubt, many who state, though I do not think the evidence which they furnish is, perhaps, as strong as it might be, that this method of killing by the mechanical killer, especially with regard to sheep, has had the effect of rapid deterioration of carcases sent especially to the London market in the summer months. There are others who state that the new method is quite satisfactory in every way. What I would like to stress is that I think the question is eminently one for a Select Committee. If I had the choice to-day of voting for this Bill or its rejection, I would vote for it without doubt, because I believe that there could be an adjustment and accommodation in Committee to make it at least workable and acceptable, not only to public opinion, but to the important agricultural interest concerned as well.

I believe, however, that we have not reached the stage when we can definitely state that we have got a very efficient, effective and painless means of slaughter, and, until we have arrived at such stage, I think it is very unfortunate that we should promote legislation to alter a system which has worked fairly satisfactorily, and increasingly satisfactorily since those who are engaged as slaughtermen have become, during the last few years, undoubtedly more efficient in their practice. The Clause in this Bill which makes it necessary for slaughtermen to be licensed, and therefore to be recognised as having a certain degree of competency, is one which has my wholehearted support. There is also the question of pigs. It is one of great importance, because in Scotland pigs have been excluded from the operation of the Act, and it does appear to me very unfair that we should have one Act for Scotland and a different one for England, whereby the Scottish bacon curers—I am speaking against the interest of my fellow-countrymen in this respect—should be exempt from using the humane killer, and the English bacon curers should be compelled to adopt it. It is a question of very great difficulty, but it is one which, I agree, could be properly rectified in Committee.

It was said in the discussion on the Bill two years ago that we should have a Bill for England as well as for Scotland. We must have progress at some time.

I agree that we have to start things at some point. There is a further question to which I want to come, and it is one with which I have intimate and long personal experience, namely, the question of slaughter on farms. I have seen many cases of extreme cruelty in slaughter on the farm, and more deliberate cruelty there than in public slaughter-houses. There is a certain degree of competence in the slaughter-house, but I am afraid that in many cases of slaughter on the farms, the present implements are not up-to-date, and those who use them have very little experience indeed. Therefore if we want to get this question of cruelty and fear eliminated, we should really tackle this question of slaughter on the farm. Also for the reason that Clause 6 excludes certain methods of slaughter which many of us think are extremely cruel. I am strongly of opinion that this House would be very wise indeed, in the interest of bringing less fear and less pain to dumb creatures, if we allowed this matter to go to a Select Committee, not for the usual practice of this House to shelve the question altogether, but to allow it to be thrashed out in the most up-to-date way, and to arrive at a solution as to the most effective way that would safeguard dumb animals from unnecessary pain which, I quite agree, in many cases, they have to undergo now during a process of slaughter

Speaking as chairman of the committee which deals with what is probably the finest abattoir in the world, one which has been referred to by the ex-Minister of Agriculture today, namely, that at Sheffield, I think I can speak, at any rate, with some authority regarding the humane slaughter of animals. I listened with a great deal of admiration to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member who introduced this Bill. It was a speech, in my estimation, admirable in every way, but I think he probably over-emphasised one or two things, for which no doubt there was a possible excuse. I have seen slaughtering on several occasions, and I do not think there is any need to fear that the firm mentioned drop pigs into scalding tanks before they are dead. I do not think a firm of that repute would ever do that. The examples of slaughter I have seen there have been done with every expedition and despatch but, even with that, I do not think that the method can be compared with the humane slaughter that is in operation, at any rate, in Sheffield.

There is humane slaughter and humane slaughter. I can conceive circumstances in which the humane killer can be almost as cruel as the pole-axe. It all depends on the operator. The actual blow, whether from the pole-axe or from what is after all a mechanical pole-axe—the captive bullet—does not matter, so long as it is done in the right spot with the animal's head still.

The cruelty consists in dragging and pulling the animal about before it receives the blow which renders it unconscious. The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Lang) gave me absolute faith. He first admitted my contention that the cruelty to animals consisted in manhandling before slaughter, and I agree with him. Then he advocated the continuance of the method which involves dragging the animals' head down, in many cases to a ring on the floor, before the blow is delivered. I can conceive no worse cruelty than that, and it will be found that up-to-date abattoirs avoid all that kind of thing. I will describe presently the method in Sheffield, which the House will agree is the finest in the country. I have seen slaughter in Glasgow and other parts of the country, and I know no method better than the one which we have adopted in Sheffield.

There are one or two great blots on the Bill. I would have included powers to make compulsory the slaughter of all animals, whether killed in slaughterhouses or not, by this method. Provision should have been made for cheap slaughter for the man who has fed his pig and kills it in his backyard. The method adopted in such cases has been called simply murdering the pig. There are no terms with which one can describe the horrors of the Jewish method of slaughter, and I do not know any reason, except that which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has indicated, why compulsion has been left out of this Bill in regard to that particular method. Talk about manhandling. The animal is shackled with its feet, and then thrust bodily over. Sometimes it falls on the mattress which is provided, and sometimes it misses and falls on its side. If we are going to institute a humane slaughter Bill and exclude things like that, our ideas of humanity have gone astray. No matter what political pressure were behind the agitation, I should certainly do away once and for all with a method of slaughter which, in my estimation, is the absolute acme of cruelty and pain.

I want to say a word about Sheffield's particular method. The essence of humane slaughter consists in allowing the animal to become unconscious without having any knowledge of what is about to happen. We have erected in Sheffield lairages from which gangways run; at the end there is an iron cage, which looks like the animal's stall. The animal goes into that without any fear and trembling, and the operator puts a rope round its neck, gently draws it towards. him, places the captive bullet pistol in position, and the whole thing is over in two or three seconds. I have watched that method of slaughter many times. We slaughter in Sheffield 180,000 animals per annum by this method, and apply it to all animals. I could say a good deal about the question of splashing, but I do not want to take up the time of the House.

A statement has been made by a Sheffield butcher about the splashing there, and, if the hon. Gentleman will deal with it, it will be useful.

I can deal with it pretty effectively. In the Sheffield method I am describing, the animal at once goes down into the bottom, and during the whole process it has seen no blood or other victims, and the animal is in the best form when it is killed like that. Much of the blood-splashing is due to the agitated condition of the animal. If it were put to the butchers of Sheffield to-day, they would not go back to the old method of pole-axing of beasts, and I can definitely say that of Glasgow. I have seen the Glasgow killing in operation and have spoken to the butchers there, and they have told me, as a member of the Northern Markets Association, that on no account would they go back to the old method of slaughter.

With regard to pigs, I do not hesitate to say that the method we have adopted is far and away more humane than the old method of throat-cutting. I am not at all sure that the moment the pig's throat is cut, the pig becomes unconscious. I have seen pigs turn right up after having their throats cut, and that cannot, of course, happen when the brain is shattered with a pistol. We deal with pigs in this way in Sheffield. The pig goes out of its lairage, where it has had plenty of water and rest. Rest is. essential in humane slaughter. The pig goes up a narrow gangway and passes over an iron plate with sides which are sloping. The moment its feet touch a certain portion, the bottom drops out, and the pig is held fast, so that it cannot move its head or its body. At that point, the pistol is applied, and unconsciousness immediately ensues. It is bled immediately, and that is one of the essentials in the prevention of splashing; it must be bled immediately. In the case to which the hon. Gentleman opposite referred, they were leaving pigs on the floor after being shot something like four or five or six minutes, and they were asking for trouble by doing that. Since then, we have made investigations and conducted experiments, and we have certainly reduced the splashing to the minimum. It does not always take place when pigs have been killed by the humane killer. In one experiment in which I took part, the worst splashing was in the case of pigs which had been stunned with the pole-axe. That is a remarkable fact, and I feel that with care a great deal can be effected towards the absolute elimination of so-called blood-splashing.

I should like to give the House an extract from a statement of our veterinary officer, who has spent a good deal of time on this matter, having investigated it from all sides with the help of the Sheffield University. He says: He goes on to say that the other essential factor is absolute rest before slaughter. In Sheffield we believe that with the modern equipment we possess we can almost eliminate blood splashing and our veterinary officer is certainly very confident that if we can continue our experiments for a time we can practically eliminate it. I have no hesitation in saying that anyone who sees the methods we have adopted there must come to the conclusion that it is the best method, the most humane method and the cleanest method of slaughtering. After all, the slaughter of animals is not a humane thing at all. It is a cruel business at the best of times, and anyone who thinks he is going to see something pleasant when watching the slaughter of animals is making a huge mistake. It is a grim affair, and it is up to this House to deal with the situation in the best way we can.

I have come to the conclusion that if we are to get the best out of these wonderful slaughtering instruments which have been designed, Clause 3 of the Bill, which gives local authorities power to employ slaughtermen, must be adopted extensively. Mistakes can be made with this method of slaughter; there is no doubt about it; but it is up to local authorities to train men and to make them very highly skilled in this method of slaughter, and those men should do the killing rather than the 20 or 30 wholesale butchers who may happen to be using the abattoir. We have got a young man in Sheffield who will kill anybody's beasts for 2d., which just pays for the cost of the cartridge—perhaps there is a little over. I have never yet known that lad make a mistake. Seeing that that is possible, it is very necessary that local authorities should have the power which I have indicated, and I regard Clause 3 as one of the best in the Bill. In conclusion, I am sorry the Bill does not eliminate the Jewish method of slaughter, and I am sorry that it does not apply to all pigs, whether the killing takes place in a backyard, a private slaughter-house or an abattoir.

I would like to congratulate the hon. Member for the Brightside Division (Mr. Marshall) upon the able and eloquent speech he has made and on the practical information which he has placed at our disposal. The statements he has made, being based upon practical experience, will carry far more weight than some of the theoretical arguments which have already been adduced in the Debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) when addressing the House, asked me to say what concessions the promoters of the Bill will be prepared to make if it goes to a committee. Before the Bill was presented to the House most careful and meticulous consideration was given to every one of its terms. We consider that the contents of the Bill constitute a minimum of what is required. I am profoundly disappointed at the statements which were made by the Minister of Health. I had hoped that he would have been prepared, on behalf of the Government, to say that sufficient time would be given not only for the Bill to pass through the Committee stage, but through every stage during the lifetime of the present Parliament. I would appeal as strongly as I can to the hon. Lady who is now here to represent the Ministry of Health to take this matter further into consideration and to see whether it would not be possible for facilities to be given to us.

In the time at my disposal I do not intend to recapitulate the arguments and statements made by hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore). I think everyone will agree that he placed his case fully and fairly before the House. I can assure the House that so far as we, the promoters of the Bill, are concerned, we are prepared to face every difficulty. We desire to be quite frank, to be quite open, and if this Bill does go to Committee, as I hope it will, I can only say that if it does appear that we shall not be able to get the whole of the Bill we will consider any suggestions which are made. It has been suggested that there is doubt whether the slaugter of animals by the humane Killer is the most humane method of killing. I am rather surprised that statements to that effect should have been made at this stage. I think there can be no doubt that the Minister of Health was stating what was quite accurate when he said that experience has shown it and that public opinion had approved of the method of killing animals by the humane killer. As one who has given very careful consideration to this matter for the last three or four years I can say quite definitely that from the experience which my society have had we have come to the conclusion that there can be no doubt that the slaughter of animals by the humane killer is the most humane possible. We have not approached the matter from a one-sided point of view because we have always felt that if we are to carry any reform it is necessary to face all the difficulties and meet them.

The hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs pointed out that a large number of authorities in this country have already adopted the humane killer bylaw, and that a number of butchers also use it voluntarily, and I can entirely corroborate the statement made by the hon. Member for the Brightside Division that in no case has any butcher who has once used the humane killer been prepared to go back to the old-fashioned method of slaughter. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Guinness) should have stated that he thinks that some doubts exist with regard to the applicability of the humane killer to the slaughter of pigs. That is a matter to which we have given very careful consideration, and we have satisfied ourselves that the humane killer is equally as applicable to the killing of pigs satisfactorily as to other animals, or we should not have put that particular provision in the Bill.

I do not wish to repeat the statements made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs, but I would like to emphasize the fact, because it is a fact, that in the bacon factories of this, country to-day pigs are killed in a most inhuman and most horrible fashion. I have before me the reports. There is one report in particular of a sanitary inspector showing the acute suffering which for 20 to 30 seconds does accrue to these unfortunate pigs on their way to being made into food for human beings. I would like to refer to a report, which has already been mentioned, of the City of London Corporation which was presented some little time ago. This particular portion of the report has not been quoted. It is a report which was made by some of the most eminent authorities on this particular subject. Before I read this particular paragraph, I ought to say that before the report was pre- pared no fewer than 800 pigs were subjected to experiments by these learned and most eminent men. It says this:

Lancet " that the Medical Officer of Health of Bloemfontein in South Africa reported that many thousands of pigs have been slaughtered by the humane killer and in no case had there been any complaints as to insufficient bleeding or the keeping quality of the meat. Not very long ago too the Medical Officer of Health for Brighton stated in his report that a large number of pigs were slaughtered there by means of the humane killer and that there was very little evidence of blood splashing. He went on to say that this was undoubtedly due to the fact that bleeding had taken place or the pig had been stuck immediately after being rendered unconscious. At Brighton he said they slaughtered an average of 300 a week.

I have read the literature and statements made on behalf of those interested in this matter. I have listened with a very great amount of anxious attention to the speeches made by the hon. Members who are not supporting this Bill. There is one fact which has struck me as being most peculiar, if there is any strength or substance at all in the arguments they are using. From the statements they are making they have not endeavoured to suggest that blood splashing cannot be avoided in the case of a pig humanely killed, provided the sticking takes place immediately afterwards. I think I am right in saying that the whole of modern authority—I use the word "modern" advisedly—goes to show, without any doubt at all, that no blood splashing or deterioration takes place, provided the pig is stuck immediately after stunning and provided the precaution had been taken that that animal was not subjected to any fear. I appeal to the House strongly to do what it can to end the unnecessary suffering which undoubtedly does take place in the case of those pigs which are slaughtered in the bacon factories of this country.

It has been suggested here to-day by my hon. Friend behind me that the humane killer does not always work satisfactorily. My hon. Friend produced to the House a skull of an animal which showed more than one hole caused by a captive bolt pistol, but my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby was very careful indeed, although I challenged him, not to say when that particular animal was slaughtered so as to give us an opportunity of dealing with that particular case. What are the facts with regard to the humane killer? I am justified in saying, without fear of contradiction, that the humane killers which we have to-day are almost perfect. The reports which we have from the abattoirs and slaughter-houses throughout the country go to show that.

I will admit frankly that five or six years ago the humane killers were not as satisfactory as we would like them to be. If the skull produced was slaughtered by means of a humane killer six or seven years ago, I can quite understand the fact that there is more than one hole in that particular skull. We found up to four or five years ago that there was a difficulty sometimes in adjusting the captive bolt and that what the hon. Gentleman explained did a few times undoubtedly take place. I am stating what is the fact when I tell the House that all those difficulties have been got over, and there is no danger at all of any trouble like this where an animal is being slaughtered by an expert person and with the humane killer subject to the conditions to which the hon. Member referred. On behalf of the great society, over the Council of which I have the honour to preside, I say that, if this Bill is passed on the Statute Book, that society will render every assistance it can, even if we have to go to expense in doing so and in seeing that slaughtermen throughout the Country are properly educated in the use of the humane killer. I will not recapitulate the statements which have already been made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs, and, in conclusion, I appeal as strongly as I can to the House to pass on to the Statute Book of the Realm at the earliest possible date this great necessary reform, believing as I do, after having made a thorough investigation, that it is necessary in order to prevent animals being subjected as they are to-day to unnecessary suffering that it should be passed.

3.0 p.m.

There is one other point. The hon. Member on my left on the Liberal benches referred to the fact that pigs were kept out of the Scottish Bill. That is quite true, but, as he knows, the Corporation of Glasgow and over one hundred local authorities in Scotland have adopted the Ministry of Health's humane by-law and all pigs in Glasgow and in the districts of those local authorities are killed by the humane killer and the reports, which we have received at the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, show that the results are satisfactory and that those butchers will not revert to the old-fashioned methods. We, as the Council of the Royal Society, regard ourselves as in the position of a quasi-judicial authority, and it was with a sense of responsibility we presented this Bill. A complaint was made by the hon. Member opposite that the Bill did not go as far as he would like it to go. We determined that we would put in our Bill our minimum requirements, that we would be moderate and that we would not put in anything which would jeopardise its passage on to the Statute Book. I appeal to the House to give the Bill a Second Reading and not to pass the Amendment for a Select Committee which would mean the death of the Bill for the present Session and perhaps as far as the present Parliament is concerned.

I think I can put what I have to say with reference to this Bill in a very few words. I cannot speak here to-day as a slaughterman—at any rate not intentionally—but I can speak as one of a trade or a profession which is accused sometimes of being second cousin to that of a slaughterman. The physiology—and that is the point I want to deal with—of human beings is very similar to that of the larger animals we use for food. The members of my profession learned a very long time ago that when we want to do anything unpleasant to any of our victims it pays us well to render them anaesthetic, and I feel that that is the great point in this Bill. The Bill does not prescribe the necessity for the humane killer, if there is a better method for killing the patient—[ Laughter. ]—or rather, the animal—promptly or for making it unconscious, any other method can quite well be used instead of the humane killer. Many of the speakers in this discussion have, I think, omitted to take account of the fact that the whole question is one of rendering the animal unconscious as quickly as possible. What does it matter how long the animal bleeds if it is unconscious? We sometimes spend hours over operations, and bleeding may take place, but the individual concerned knows nothing of it. Again, what does it matter if, as the hon. Member for Holland (Mr. Blindell) said, some minutes elapse before the animal is dead, provided that it remains unconscious, and, therefore, does not know what is happening? The hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lang) pointed out that in some cases, after an animal had been shot and thereby rendered unconscious, it was necessary to enlarge the opening in its skull with a pole-axe. Again I ask, what does that matter provided that the animal is unconscious? That is the point which this Bill insists on, namely, that as long as the animal is unconscious it does not matter how long it takes to die.

Another point was made with which I should like to deal. It was made first by the hon. Member for Oldham, who said that it was as easy to kill an animal with a pole-axe as with one of these humane killers, and that the factor of nervousness on the part of the operator came in no more in the one case than in the other. I do not feel that that is correct at all. I am quite sure that it is much easier to hold a pistol to an animal's head than to wield a weapon which very much resembles a pick-axe and strike with it an exact point on the skull. Another question that has been discussed is that of blood splashing. I do not think there is any doubt, from the facts that have been brought forward here to-day, that blood splashing does occur in carcases killed by all methods; but I want to suggest that the cause of blood splashing is mainly fear. We know very well, physiologically, that fear has the effect of letting into the blood stream the secretion of the adrenal gland, and one of the effects of this is to raise the blood tension, and, therefore, make bleeding occur more easily. I am quite sure that, as has already been stated more than once to-day, the factor of fear is a very big one in connection with blood splashing.

There are two other points that I should like to mention. I do not think that sufficient stress has been laid on the importance of licensing those who have to slaughter animals. I am convinced that it is not an easy thing to slaughter an animal, particularly with the knife. I am quite sure that pig-sticking is a very difficult and skilled occupation, and I feel that, for the sake of the animals concerned, only those who are really skilled should undertake these operations.

There is one Clause in the Bill that I feel I cannot agree to; but this, being a minor point, could easily be altered in Committee. I do not think that we in this House ought to allow an inspector of an unquestionably prejudiced association to enter as a matter of right the premises of a private individual. Of course, the law must allow, as it does now, the inspectors of local authorities, policemen, and other official persons like these to enter, but I should object to an inspector of a private society having a right of entry into any premises. That, however, is a very minor point and could easily be dealt with in Committee. I feel that I should like to support the Bill.

The arguments that have been advanced, as very often happens in a debate of this kind, have to some extent been exaggerated on both sides. I think the hon. Member who preceded me very properly reminded the House that the real object of the Bill was to ensure that the animals that are the subject of it shall be, as far as possible, freed from unnecessary pain. If there is any doubt at all as to whether or not they are to be freed from pain by the particular method described, it is well to remind ourselves that the Bill does not prescribe any particular method and that, if it is found that some more scientific and easy method can be produced, that method will be adopted.

We are asked to vote for sending the Bill to a Select Committee. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment said it was necessary to do so in order to get an impartial opinion. In a matter of this kind, upon which during the last few years, at any rate, there has been ample opportunity for every Member of the House to acquaint himself with the facts, this Assembly itself can really and effectively be described as an impartial body. An hon. Member below me said, if he had to decide whether to vote for the Bill or against it, he would vote for it, and we have now an opportunity of deciding whether to vote for the Bill or to send it to a Select Committee and, if the latter, simply delaying the opportunity that is afforded of freeing animals from pain. Every Member of the House desires, whatever the method, that no animal shall be caused unnecessary suffering. It seems to me that the House can be regarded as an impartial a body as it would be possible to find. We have had ample opportunity of ascertaining for ourselves the facts of the case and I hope we shall all have the courage of our convictions and vote for the Bill being sent to a Committee.

This Bill does not apply to Scotland, but I think a Scottish Member may be allowed to intervene when one recollects the way in which English Members are permitted to weigh in on matters that affect Scotland, and how the majority of English Members can, when they like—and they sometimes do like—impose upon Scotland laws which the Scottish Members themselves do not approve. I agree that there is no national or party division on this question but, without putting a capital C to the word conservatism, we can say that there is a conflict between conservatism and progress. The Bill represents the cause of progress, while those who stand for the Amendment have taken up a conservative attitude and really are reaction- ary in their tendencies. I have not a great deal of title to speak upon a matter of this kind because of lack of experience of seeing animals slaughtered. An attempt has been made, not in this House to-day, I am glad to say, to influence the opinion of Members by declaring that the meat produced from animals slaughtered by the humane killer is not as good for consumption as the meat from animals slaughtered by the ordinary old method. For 14 years I lived in Carlisle, one of the pioneer cities in respect of the method of humane slaughter, and I have lived since that time in Edinburgh, where the humane slaughter of animals has been carried on since the beginning of the operation of the Scottish Act. I can tell the House quite frankly that I am still sound in wind and limb and feel no ill effects from any of the humane killed meat which I have eaten.

The last animal which I saw slaughtered was a race horse on a race course. It was leading in a race when it broke a fetlock bone and in sight of thousands of people watching the race and within three or four minutes after the accident took place near the grand stand the animal had been slaughtered by a humane killer and taken away. I was very glad indeed to see such evidence of the quick and painless destruction of an animal which, a few minutes before the accident, had been full of life and vigour. I am certain that if more hon. Members of this House had had actual experience of seeing slaughtering carried out either by the humane killer or by any other method there would probably be more vegetarians than there are at the present time. There are three categories of people. There are the vegetarians, those who have thought about the matter for so long that they have given up all idea of consuming for their sustenance the decaying carcases of animals. There are those who stand midway and are still flesh eaters, but who wish to see the flesh obtained for them by means which do not involve serious suffering to the animals which are slaughtered. There is the third category who do not care, or, at least, who do not think very much and do not wish to find out, how their meat is produced. In supporting the Bill, those of us who have not yet reached the highly civilised state of ceasing to eat meat altogether are seeking, as far as we can, to clear our consciences by asking that the most humane methods should be used in order to provide us with our flesh food.

Reference has been made to different experiments which have been carried out, and we have had the pole-axe method contrasted with the humane killer. I think it will be admitted by those who oppose this Bill there is very little doubt that in carrying out experiments with the pole-axe care would be taken to see that the most expert slaughterer was employed. Very great skill is necessary. The pole-axe must come down within a very small radius, and when one thinks of the possibility of the blow being deflected one can realise quite easily how important it is that there should be some instrument used which can prevent any possibility of a mistake, in so far as mistakes can be humanly prevented. The gruesome instrument that has been shown by the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore) is one with which hon. Members have not much acquaintance, but many hon. Members have acquaintance with another instrument which has a wooden shaft and a steel head, and which they use frequently. When I reflect that the blow from the pole-axe has to come dawn on the animal's skull within a radius not bigger than that of a golf ball, and when I also reflect that hon. Members of this House in using a golf club are not always quite certain where they will hit the golf ball and where the ball will go, and that the golf ball is not at all nervous about what is going to happen to it—

Would the hon. Member employ these methods for the humane and rapid slaughter of bores?

I am making a point and saying that the golf ball is not likely to be dodging out of the way of the club head as the animal tries to dodge the pole-axe when it is being slaughtered. If a golf ball had any feeling at all, it would probably be one of amusement at what was taking place.

Many statistics have been quoted to-day. I will quote important figures which were ascertained within the boundaries of my own Division in Edinburgh, where the city abattoir is situated. Experiments were conducted by representatives of the physiology department of the University of Edinburgh upon 50 sheep with a view to discovering the cessation of consciousness in the process of slaughter. That is a point to bear in mind. It is not so much a question of when death supervenes, but when unconsciousness takes place in the animal. By the process of sticking and checking, that is, the ordinary method, using a knife on sheep, the average time taken for 30 sheep to become unconscious was 33 1/5th seconds, whereas the average time taken to produce unconsciousness when the humane killer was used on 20 sheep was four-fifths of a second. In these figures alone, there is ample justification for the passing of this Bill and for making it compulsory that sheep and other animals should be destroyed by the humane slaughterer.

The argument about causing unemployment by insisting upon animals being destroyed by the humane killer, is beside the mark. I claim that by the way public conscience is developing there is more likelihood of employment declining if the humane killer is not used. People are inquiring more and more how the animals they use for food are destroyed, and very soon they will object to buying flesh of animals which have not been destroyed by the humane killer. It has been claimed that the humane killer causes blood splash, but my hon. Friend below the Gangway proved conclusively that a very great deal of blood splash is due to causes other than those which take place at the actual point of slaughter and are due, in fact, to pre-slaughter causes altogether, largely to fear.

To refer this matter to a Select Committee is entirely unnecessary. With the Scottish and other experience which can be quoted, the fact that, even in the case of pigs, slaughterers are going in more for the humane killer, makes out the case for the Bill to the full. If anything, it is too modest and too slow in its application. The opponents of the Measure who are contending for the appointment of a Select Committee might have accepted the reasonable way in which the Bill has been drawn and the reasonable way in which all possible objections have been met. In my judgment an inquiry is not necessary. The facts are clearly demonstrated and overwhelmingly in favour of the Bill—in favour of even a stronger Bill than the present Measure—and its speedy enactment into law.

The argument which I should like to have put before the House has already been used with very great effect by several hon. Members, but I just want to emphasise the point that there is more bungling likely to occur in killing an animal with the pole-axe than with the humane killer, especially if it is in expert hands, and if we can reduce the amount of suffering which is caused by bungling it is our duty to do so. I should like also to emphasise the point made by the Minister of Health as regards the importance of public opinion in a matter of this kind. In the case of experiments on animals, most careful regulations are insisted upon in order to prevent pain and suffering. The President of the College of Physicians or the College of Surgeons, if they desire to make an experiment on an animal, is obliged to take, and quite rightly, the very strictest measures to avoid pain. This method of killing has been demonstrated to be the quickest way of achieving unconsciousness. One of the most eminent physiologists of this generation points out that the animal becomes unconscious before the impact of the blow can be properly effected. That is a statement which should have great weight indeed, as it makes it obvious that this is the method which ought to be chosen. In this matter we must take into consideration public opinion and remove a reproach which is a very serious blot on this country at the moment.

The hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore) said that the object of those who desire to send the Bill to a Select Committee is to shelve the Measure altogether. I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that that is not my intention. I have always made my position quite clear to my constituents. Representing an agricultural division, as I do, I am very anxious about the pig industry, and if a promise could be made such as was made by the hon. and gallant Member last year—that pigs will be exempted from the Bill—I should not put my name to any Amendment whatever, because I am entirely in favour of the humane slaughter of animals.

Reference was made by the hon. and gallant Member to the ignorance of Members of the House on this subject. I am sure that this debate has removed some of that ignorance and has educated many hon. Members on points which are affected by the Bill. Being a farmer and having been associated with animals all my life, I am a great lover of animals. I do not want to kill anything, and I would not kill anything if I could avoid it. If animals had to wait for me to slaughter them there would be more vegetarians than there are. But I hope that sentiment will not overcome practice in this debate and that we shall not be led away by it. Animals are very good to us if we are good to them, and we get a great deal more out of them by being kind to them. They have very long memories, too. I have had the experience of a pony remembering an act of kindness for two years. We cannot over-estimate the knowledge that animals have. It is our duty to be kind to them. I am surprised at any hon. Member getting up and advocating for England a Bill that is not on the lines of practice in Scotland. Why does the Bill not exempt swine as in Scotland?

The pig industry is a large industry. There are about 100,000 persons engaged in it. But we do not expect it to stop at that figure; we expect it largely to increase. At the present time, when there is so much unemployment, are we to run the risk of putting more men out of work? That point must be considered seriously. The Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill, which is now before Standing Committee B, is to provide more smallholdings and to make possible the settlement of men on the land. I am looking forward to the time when there will be smallholders who will be engaged in the pig industry only. There is a great deal of difference between the methods of curing bacon. Generally the pigs that are slaughtered with the humane killer are made into pork pies and are eaten within a week; but there is a kind of bacon curing, the old-fashioned salt curing, which it not so much followed. You can scarcely get bacon of that kind in any shop in England to-day. I want to get back to that system. Bacon is an important part of our food, not only for the well-to-do but for the poorer classes.

If we increase our pig industry we shall find more work and consume more of our own produce—more of the bacon, more of the oats grown on the land, and more of the waste potatoes. So the question is a wide one. I do not want to see the Bill defeated, but I want to see the pig industry defended and a promise given to us that no harm will be done to it. It is a fact that large orders for bacon could be given in this country if we had bacon of the right character to supply. An order for £150,000 of English bacon could have been given during the last week if we had had it on the market. Surely, we ought to do all in our power to foster the pig industry and not do anything which will injure it. I support the Bill most heartily, being of such a nature that I wish to see kindness shown to all animals.

I feel that there is something left to be said on this Bill from the point of view of the professional man who has had to look into this question as a Medical Officer of Health—one of those who may be considered as having had the privilege of doing some of the dirty work of the community. Several hon. Members have spoken with some insight upon the question of the methods used in slaughter-houses, but very few, I think, have had to look at this question from the professional standpoint and to consider systematically what is the best method in all the circumstances. I have seen the big slaughter-houses in Paris and in various part of Germany and I have noted the contrast between those big abattoirs, where everything is done so well, and the slaughter-houses, as they are known, in this country. It is for that reason among others that I welcome this Bill as a step in the direction which we have been keen on taking for so many years.

I agree with those who spoke earlier in the debate and who objected to the heat that was being imported into this discussion. The difficulty with these questions always is to get at the scientific truth in a matter where our hearts are touched. One is liable to have overstatements and to-day without question we have had over-statements. We have had over-statements in the direction of which we are all in favour and for that reason it may be more difficult to arrive at the truth in the investigation of this matter. My difficulty has not been entirely removed by the speech of the hon. Member for Gillingham (Sir R. Gower) who speaks with authority for the society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. He referred to what I consider to have been a most vital and useful inquiry undertaken by the Corporation of the City of London in 1925—though I understand that their opinion has been revised since. I took special pains to find out about that committee of inquiry because it was dealing with the biggest cattle-market in the country and one of its members was the Medical Officer of Health for the City of London who succeeded me as President of the Society of Medical Officers of Health. He may be taken as a man who would regard this matter in his professional capacity, and from an impartial point of view. He certainly with two other members suggested the paragraph read by the hon. Member for Gillingham, but the hon. Member did not read this paragraph, which is very important: matter for general legislation. They have repeated their resolution, in favour of the Bill being adopted in its present form. I maintain that in view of the decision of the City Corporation, and what has been said hitherto, we cannot consider the case definitely proved in the matter of pigs. The difference between the views we have heard to-day could be explained, I believe, but evidently it has not been reconciled.

The hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lang) who moved the Amendment, said that there could be only one question, namely, as to which method is the less humane. That is not looking at the matter from a practical point of view. Those of us who have seen slaughter conducted by experts in either of the methods, recognise that there is not a great deal of difference as regards the painlessness to animals. That is the reason why the Jewish method has been excluded from the Bill. It is only allowed under licence by the Chief Rabbi, after it had been shown clearly that it was done by experts. If not done by experts, it would not be permissible. The same thing would apply to humane slaughter. It should be done by experts. We have not to consider whether, when done by experts, it is the best way, but whether, when applied, it will be for the general good of the animals.

It may be said that the Bill ought to go to a Select Committee. That must not be decided here, but by the Standing Committee. It should be quite possible for the Standing Committee to exclude things from the Bill and make it the same as the one applying to Scotland. I suggest another possibility which the Standing Committee might consider. The Bill provides that the Clause with regard to pigs should come into force on 1st, January, 1932. If the question of pigs is not settled to the Standing Committee's satisfaction, that Committee could substitute a further date, so that that part of the Bill would come into operation five years hence, and even then being subject to a Resolution being passed by either House of Parliament against it coming into force. That would give the bacon-curers the chance of bringing their case, and for a Resolution to be submitted to either House, but if they do not do so, or it is difficult for them to do so, the Measure would come into force, and five years would be time for the required personnel to be engaged.

I believe that that is one of the ways in which the Standing Committee could deal with the case. We are not closing the case against the bacon-curers by submitting the Bill as a whole to a Standing Committee. I believe the evidence is such that it could be shown to the Standing Committee that it is possible for the Bill to be passed with certain modifications as to regulations. At the same time, by sending it to the Standing Committee, we are not tying up the case as against the bacon-curers, but we should be tying up the case interminably against the general feeling of this House, and, I believe, the general feeling of the health profession, scientific men and humane people at the present time if we accepted the Amendment.

In view of the statements we have heard this afternoon from the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health and the right hon. Gentleman on the Opposition Front Bench, and particularly in view of the statement that only an agreed Measure was likely to get on the Statute Book, my hon. Friends and I do not propose to divide the House, but ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, in the hope that such measure of agreement may be arrived at.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

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

I am afraid that the House will not be able this afternoon to give very long consideration to this Bill, which is in similar terms to the Bill which has previously been presented to this House, and is in exactly similar terms to the Bill which passed through another place in the year 1924. In that case it passed through all its stages. Very shortly, the object of the Bill, as stated in the Memorandum, is

There is opposition, as I understand it, on the point whether a Bill of this character is necessary. As my time is short, I want to confine myself to three questions: First, do schools which teach blasphemy and sedition still exist, and is the Bill necessary? Second, does the present law sufficiently protect children, and therefore make a further Bill of this character unnecessary? Third, is there any reason to suppose that any person will be unfairly treated or suffer in any way by the passing of the Bill? It is very difficult indeed to secure evidence that there is any widespread teaching of blasphemy. It is clear that there is no widespread teaching of this kind in this country to-day. It is going on, but it is extraordinarily difficult to get evidence, because a great deal of the small amount which there is goes on in private houses, and in many cases, as far as the evidence which I have been able to obtain goes, those who start this kind of school are apt to move from one place to another, because of the great deal of opposition from people of all classes, particularly mothers, to teaching of this kind, so these people move about, and the schools die away. It is clearly difficult, therefore, to get direct evidence, but that a certain amount of teaching is going on is beyond dispute.

I would like to give the House examples of the very few cases that can be quoted as existing, but as there are other points with which I want to deal, and no opposition is shown on that point, I want to leave it with only one more word. If, in fact, there are very few schools of this character, there seems no cause to object to the Bill. I want to turn to the second question—does the present law sufficiently protect children? I would like hon. Members to bear in mind the debates that have previously taken place. The present law makes it extremely difficult to punish the few people there are who engaged in this sort of teaching.

It has been laid down by many authorities that the proposals in this Bill to deal with such matters by summary jurisdiction would be in every way better both for the accused themselves and for the purpose of putting down this propaganda. On past occasions there has, I am afraid, been a good deal of confusion in the minds of hon. Members and the public outside as to what the Bill aims at. Over and over again it has been suggested that it is aimed at Socialist Sunday Schools. Nothing of the kind. There is as wide a difference between the kind of Sunday School, if one can call it by that high-sounding title, which this Bill attempts to deal with, and the Socialist Sunday Schools as there is between these Communist Sunday Schools and those of any other denomination. In many parts of the country there has been a movement from the Socialist Sunday Schools against these very schools.

It is true to say that no form of thought is absolute, and that it is wrong to try to prevent free speech or to interfere with opinions which are held or expressed. I want to make it perfectly clear to the House that there is not one word in the Bill which prevents any adult expressing any opinion at all. It cannot be too often emphasised that the Bill has nothing to do with grown-up people holding opinions or expressing them. It is merely aimed at preventing the teaching of certain opinions to children, and surely there is no Member who will not agree that it is one thing for any of us to get up and express opinions in a gathering of adults who are able to consider the statements made in the light of their experience and their knowledge and quite a different thing to teach that class of propaganda to immature children who are quite unable to put forward any views of their own against the teaching which they receive or to judge of that teaching by their experience.

Do you regard children up to 16 as immature?

I think so.

But you oppose the raising of the school age above 14. [ Interruption. ]

I think that in the case of this teaching it might be a matter of argument that one year or two years in the matter of the age might not make much difference, but surely 16 is not an unreasonable figure.

Hear, hear!

It has been said in previous debates that a definition of blasphemy is very difficult to achieve. Over and over again we have had debates on it in this House. I submit to hon. Members that there is really no dispute about it, and surely that question might be left to common sense in the administration of a Bill in which the general principle is clearly expressed. We are spending very large sums of money to educate children, and surely it is not unreasonable that we should strive to prevent the teaching which they may get on a Sunday from absolutely destroying all the good they get from the education for which the State is paying during the week.

I beg to second the Motion.

I have about 30 seconds at my disposal in which to support the Bill, and I will use them by answering the interjection made by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who threw across the House the taunt that my hon. and learned Friend was opposing the raising of the school age because of interference with the teaching of children—with the idea that they were being given seditious and blasphemous teaching. I would remind him of a report of the Young Communist League, whose efforts and whose publications we are trying to bring within reasonable limits—

It being Four of the Clock, further Consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

Bill to be read a Second time upon Monday next.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3.

Adjourned at One Minute after Four o'Clock, until Monday next, 15th December.