View report page

25
The Earl of Beauchamp expressed to me Lis willingness not to
oppose an amendment I suggested in the same clause, viz., that
before the Local Authority gave their consent to the establishment
anew of any of the businesses, notice should be given to the Vestry,
&c., of the parish, &c., in which the premises are situated: and
to the inhabitants in the locality, by a notice affixed to the
premises : such local notice to be similarly affixed some days before
the time appointed for the renewal of annual licenses in the case of
Slaughter Houses.
This amendment, Lord Beauchamp informed me subsequently,
had been adopted.
Clause 4 was much improved by power being given to the Local
Authority to make Bye-laws, not merely for "regulating the conduct"
of the specified businesses, but also "the structure of the
premises on which such business is being carried on."
A new Clause (10) was added to this Bill before it left the
Commons, requiring the Justices to grant a first License for a
Slaughter House as a matter of course to any premises "sanctioned"
by the Local Authority and requiring, among other things, that 14
days' previous notice should be given to the Local Authority of the
intention to apply for the renewal of a License, and a seven days'
notice to the Licensee by the Vestry of their intention to oppose
the renewal of a License.
Clause 13 underwent improvement by a proviso that a business
should be deemed to be "established anew" if the premises on
which it is for the time being carried on, should be "enlarged
without the sanction of the Local Authority." By the terms of
the Clause, as originally printed, premises might have been enlarged
by fifty per cent. at the discretion of the proprietor, without
involving the "establishing anew" of the business.
The Bill, with all these amendments, is by no means a satisfactory
measure, but may be made useful for effecting improvements
in the Slaughter Houses. It is a retrograde and disappointing
measure at the best, and the utmost praise that can be awarded to
it, is that of Earl Beauchamp, who stated in the House of Lords
that "the Bill had been approved by the trades which would be
affected by it"—trades, that is, which would have been abolished by
the Act of 1844, but which this Act will perpetuate. The measure,
however, has been made as little injurious as possible by great and
sustained efforts, among which may be included the publication of
a letter explanatory of the subject, and a history of the Bill which
I drew up, and which, through the public spirited liberality of
Mr. William Banting, was sent to the Peers, to a large number of
the Members of the Lower House, and to the Press. In quitting
the subject, I have the satisfaction of feeling that the Authorities
of this Parish have done their duty, and that a bad Bill has been
squeezed through Parliament in July, in spite of their utmost