§ [The Bill having been Committed, Recommitted, and Considered as Amended, without having been re-printed, great difficulty has been experienced in following out the Motions for Amendments, particularly those of which no Notice had been given. When a Clause has been agreed to, with or without Amendment, the small figures added refer to the No. of the corresponding Clause in the re-print of the Bill No. 32.]
§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ MR. HUNTproceeded to move a series of new clauses in lieu of Clauses 28 to 34 [Bill 7] struck out in Committee.
§ On the first of these clauses (Movement on Railways, Canals, &c),
§ MR. HUNTsaid, that he was of opinion that a longer period—namely, to the end of April, might be taken for the restriction in this case than had been thought advisable with regard to the movement of cattle, inasmuch as there were no changes of tenancy affected by it. After the end of April the Government might discontinue the restriction or continue it at their pleasure. He had seen persons interested in the tanning trade, and they were, he believed, perfectly satisfied with the clauses as they now stood, and with the Amendments of which he had given notice. In the first line of the clause, he moved to omit "25th March" in order with the view of inserting "30th April."
§ MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he did not think the hon. Gentleman could be aware of the excessive inconvenience which would be caused throughout the United Kingdom by this clause, both to the home and foreign trade in hides. According to this clause, no raw or untanned hides, horns, or hoofs, could be moved except in covered vehicles or vessels; his object, of course, being to prevent hides being carried in a way or in a state that would spread the infection. The clause, if passed in its present form, would put a stop to one of the most important industries in the country. If beasts were killed some provision must be made for the disposal of the hides. In Leeds, for instance, 900 beasts were killed and 4,000 skins were cured every week, so that upwards of 3,000 hides must be imported to keep up the supply. In Aberdeen some 1,200 beasts a week were killed; but as there was no tanning whatever carried on there, the whole of those hides would be left in Aberdeen literally to rot if this clause were carried. He had been assured that if hides were carried in a covered van, or with a top dressing of charcoal or bark, if in carts, no danger was to be apprehended. English hides were taken to the tan pit wet, and were likely to cause infection; but that was not the case with foreign hides, for they came into the country dry. Some foreign hides were brought in salted, and he believed some danger of infection existed as regarded them.
§ MR. CRAWFORDsaid, the clause prevented the hides from being moved.
§ MR. CRAWFORDCovered vans only refers to railways.
§ MR. HUNTsaid, the next clause he proposed provided that hides, &c., might be carried in any street or highway continuously built on, except it should be necessary in so doing to pass by any place where beasts are kept, provided they are conveyed in a covered vehicle, or are covered with a layer of charcoal or tan.
§ MR. CRAWFORDmaintained there was no necessity for the restriction as to foreign hides. He would move at a subsequent stage a proviso which would except raw hides, &c., imported from India, Australia, South Africa, or America.
§ MR. HUNTobserved, that he had parted with the gentlemen connected with the tanning trade under the impression that what he intended to propose would satisfy 851 them. Between the intentions of his hon. Friend the Member for London (Mr. Crawford) and his own there was no difference—the question was merely as to the words which ought to be used. The Committee would see that he made a distinction between foreign hides and English ones in respect of removal, and for this reason—the English hides travelled wet, which state rendered them more likely to convey infection; but the foreign hides came over dry, with the exception of a certain number which arrived here salted. These latter were not dry, and there appeared to be some risk from them. He was ready to meet the views of the constituents of his hon. Friend the Member for Leeds in respect of sheepskins; and here, again, the question was only one as to the words to be used.
§ MR. LOCKEsaid, he should certainly object to these restrictions with respect to hides being in operation until the 30th of April, while the restrictions on animals were only in force until the 25th of March. Nothing could show more plainly than this proposal the absurdity of applying the same rule to Northamptonshire and to the metropolis. It was surely preposterous to say that no hides should be moved about within the area of the metropolis until the 30th of April. Let them do as they pleased with respect to infected hides; but why all these tremendous restrictions with respect to the hides of perfectly sound animals? The practice in the metropolis was that on the days when cattle were slaughtered carts went round and took the hides from the slaughtering-houses. The hides were conveyed at once to the tan-yards in Bermondsey, where they were put in pits the very day the beasts were killed, there they were subjected to the influence of well-known disinfecting agencies. Why, his constituents of Bermondsey manufactured no less than 6,000 hides per week, and yet this enormous industry was almost to be paralysed for a most incommensurate purpose. With respect to foreign hides, why not adopt the principle of the Government Bill? Foreign hides came to this country for the purposes of the tan-yards of Bermondsey, and it was quite evident that if this Bill passed into law there would be no oxen in Bermondsey for them to infect.
§ MR. HUNTsaid, he had no desire to insist on the restriction with respect to hides being extended until the 30th of April. He was content that it should be 852 limited in the same way as the restriction with regard to the removal of animals.
§ CAPTAIN GRIDLEYsaid, that the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt) had introduced a clause allowing hides to be sent by railway without a licence, provided they were carried in covered carts.? This clause would be perfectly inoperative unless a clause was introduced giving permission to persons to send hides along the highways, without a licence, provided that similar precautions were taken. It was no advantage to a man to be allowed to Bend his hides by rail without a licence, if he was compelled to procure a licence before he could send the hides to the station.
§ MR. HUNTsaid, that an addition which he proposed to move to the 29th clause would remove the difficulty of which the hon. Gentleman complained. After the words in the 29th clause prohibiting the movement of hides and skins on roads he proposed to add the words—
Unless the hides shall be in a covered cart or other covered vehicle, or unless the hides, skins, horns, or hoofs are protected from exposure in an open car by a layer of charcoal.
§ CAPTAIN GRIDLEYfeared that the proposed addition to the clause would not be sufficient to allow persons to send hides along the roads without licences.
MR. BARINGobserved, that according to the wording of the clause as it now stood, neither hare skin, rabbit skin, dog skin, nor any other kind of skin could travel except in a covered van.
§ MR. HUNTsaid, the word "animal" was not at present defined in the Interpretation clause; but he intended that it should hear the same meaning as in the Government Bill. He had no objection to the movement of hides along the road provided they were moved under licence, and were sound hides coming from a healthy district.
§ CAPTAIN GRIDLEYexpressed himself satisfied with the explanation given, provided the clause was altered accordingly.
MR. BARINGsaid, it was originally supposed that all hides would carry infection, but Professor Ferguson, of Dublin, discovered a method of preparing sheepskins, which, if adopted, rendered it impossible for them to convey disease. Accordingly, a special Order had been passed to allow skins so prepared to be taken into Ireland; but he did not find among the proposals of the hon. Member any reservation in favour of such skins. The 853 clauses, in fact, for which the hon. Member was responsible, hardly afforded sufficient protection against the spread of the cattle plague. The Government measure directed that all diseased animals should be buried in their skins; but provided they were only disinfected, Clause 30 of this Bill gave colour to the supposition that diseased skins might be carried about the country. He, for one, did not attach much importance to licences, believing that, were they so largely given all over the country, some would be improperly issued; but whatever their value, it was certainly unwise to raise any doubt, as to the circumstances under which they might be granted. If it were enacted once for all, as it had already been, that diseased skins must be buried with the animals themselves, there was no need for all these stringent and vexatious provisions as to the removal of skins not tainted by the disease. In Liverpool and other places where, owing to the stoppage of railway traffic, the number of beasts killed would be enormous, Clause 29 would be simply inoperative.
§ MR. HUNTsaid, he was perfectly ready to adopt any form of words excepting towns from the operation of the clauses condemned by the hon. Gentleman opposite. The movement of skins through continuous lines of streets could do little harm; but in the country the proceeding was attended with great danger. It would be easy to put in words to prevent the construction alluded to by the Under Secretary. He really must express a hope that hon. Members would not indulge their taste for criticism in discussing the clauses of this Bill. He admitted that on ordinary occasions he enjoyed the sport himself—it was sometimes as good as a rat-hunt—and if there were plenty of time he would ask for nothing better. He asked for no quarter for himself; but as time was of so much importance, he hoped that hon. Members would exercise a little forbearance.
§ MR. GRAHAMsaid, he felt it due to the hon. Member to express his feeling of the courteous manner in which he wished to meet the views of hon. Members; but this was a point which affected his constituents, and there ought to be an addition to the clause, giving power to an officer of the Customs to certify that hides came from abroad, so as not to bring them within the operation of this clause.
§ MR. HUNTsaid, he understood that there had just been a communication re- 854 ceived from Leeds, with respect to the clauses on hides, and in order to give the tanners of that town an opportunity of having their views represented he would be glad to postpone these clauses.
§ MR. BAINESthanked the hon. Member for the good temper and discretion which he showed in the conduct of this Bill; throughout the debate he seemed to have no desire except for the public good.
§ MR. CRAWFORDwished to know if the hon. Member had any objection to exempt from the provisions of the Bill hides from India, South Africa, and Australia?
§ MR. HUNTsaid, he had already made such a provision in one of the new clauses. His only anxiety was to secure that the hides came from those countries.
§ MR. HUNTsaid, "land continuously built upon" was sufficiently wide, while it excluded growing districts. He begged to move the postponement of the clause.
§ Clauses 28 to 34, inclusive, postponed.
§ Clause 35 (Lords of the Privy Council the duty of appointing officers to inspect cattle trucks).
VISCOUNT CRANBOURNEremarked that if all the clauses were postponed they would have to begin the Bill over again.
§ SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that the clause took the whole responsibility of disinfecting the cattle trucks, platforms, and pens from the railway companies and put it upon the Government, and relieved the companies from the whole expense and placed it on the public. He was not disposed to accept a clause which relieved the companies of all the responsibility and expense. He thought the duty of disinfecting their trucks ought to be imposed on the railway companies, and that the Government should have the power of sending inspectors to see that the railway companies properly performed that duty.
§ COLONEL DOUGLAS PENNANTsaid, he thought it was not sufficient that the Government inspector alone should have the power of entering railway stations, in order to see to the disinfecting of the cattle trucks. He had himself seen the trucks which had been employed to convey cattle return filled with straw, the lower trusses of which were saturated with the dung and filth left behind by the cattle. He suggested that 855 the local inspector as well as the Government inspector should have power to enter the premises of railway companies and see that the trucks were properly cleansed and disinfected; and that in cases of neglect the companies should be subject to fine.
§ MR. HUNTsaid, the clause was faulty as it originally stood, because it would have thrown the expense of cleansing and disinfecting the trucks upon the Government; but in its amended shape it threw the expense on the companies, while at the same time it required the process to be gone through under the superintendence of Government officers. According to the information he had received from all parts of the country, the trucks were very dirty, and not disinfected. The other night the House passed a stringent provision with respect to the transit of cattle by rail; but half the good thus accomplished would be undone if they did not secure the purification of the trucks. A clear period up to the 25th of March was required, during which they should be cleansed and disinfected. That should be done under official supervision. But they must also have some machinery for ascertaining what trucks were in use and where they were. The clause which he proposed to bring up on that subject would prohibit the use of all cattle trucks until they had been disinfected, and would require the companies to make a register of their trucks by number. It also provided that any cattle truck used on a railway should be presumed not to have been cleansed or disinfected until the contrary had been shown by means of the register. That would put the companies to some inconvenience, no doubt; but there was no other mode of securing certainty in that important matter. The companies would state the stations in which the trucks so numbered respectively were standing, the Government officer would see them there, and as soon as they had been disinfected, he would write a certificate stating that such and such trucks at such a place had been disinfected on such a day.
MR. LOCKE KINGhoped the hon. Gentleman would postpone his clauses till the Committee had had an opportunity of ascertaining their effect.
§ MR. HUNTadmitted that, under ordinary circumstances, he might fairly be asked to wait till the Bill had been reprinted; but, considering the urgency of the case, he hoped the Committee would allow him to proceed.
MR. WYKEHAM-MARTINsuggested 856 that it might be well to have every truck that had been used in the conveyance of cattle thoroughly repainted.
§ MR. AYRTONasked whether the clause was confined to cattle trucks, or whether it extended to every butcher's premises and every slaughterhouse throughout the kingdom.
§ MR. HUNTsaid, he thought it highly desirable that the slaughterhouses all over the country should be disinfected. As long as the practice of slaughtering was continued, the infection was kept up; for as soon as the matter which held the infection began to dry, the slaughterhouses moistened it again, and the infection was retained. Sheep-dogs or other canine prowlers carried away the offal and lapped the blood, taking back with them to their owners' yards the means of spreading the contagion. He was willing, however, to deal with the slaughterhouses if desired, through a separate clause. It had been suggested that it would be a laborious task for the Government officers to go all over the kingdom to supervise the disinfection of cattle trucks; but an arrangement might be made by the companies by which all the trucks should be collected at certain stations, for the convenience of the Government officers. It was of primary importance that the cleansing and disinfecting should be officially superintended. When these trucks got into such a filthy state, that something must be done to them, they were sometimes shunted on to sidings with pastures closely abutting on them. The railway officials then with shovels or other implements cleared out the trucks, throwing the filth over the fences into the pastures, whereby the cattle there got infected. Then with reference to the cleansing of the railway trucks, he thought it very undesirable that the railway companies should be left to disinfect them after their own fashion; some provision should be made to insure that the proper disinfecting fluid was used; and the whole should be done under the superintendence of an officer appointed by the Government. Some disinfectants, he was told, would damage the woodwork of the railway trucks; and he had been assured that the system which had been recommended by Professor Gamgee was all that could be desired for cheapness and efficiency. He advised that the trucks should be thoroughly scrubbed with boiling water, then allowed to dry, and lastly washed with a solution of common soda or soda ash and water.
§ MR. AYRTONpointed out an inconsist- 857 ency in the clause, and remarked that it should be made quite clear whether the expense of the superintendence of the disinfecting process should be met by the local authorities or fall on the Consolidated Fund. The hon. Member had complained of the interference of metropolitan Members with the Bill. [Mr. HUNT: No, no!] But that was their duty, and they had, after all, done no more than look after the towns, while the hon. Member had himself only taken the country, with its farms and fields, into consideration,
LORD BURGHLEYsaid, the most careful inspection of the trucks was necessary, otherwise it was probable that the cleansing of them would be merely confined to a little whitewashing half-way down them, as had been down to some of the trucks on certain railways, leaving them afterwards like whitened sepulchres.
§ MR. LIDDELLurged that ample time should be given to the railway companies to effect a thorough disinfection of their trucks, as the operation, to be properly carried out, would occupy a considerable period.
VISCOUNT CRANBOURNEthought that too much importance could not be placed upon this point by the Government. He confessed he was somewhat startled upon hearing his hon. Friend (Mr. Hunt) recommend soda and hot water as the best disinfectant. He (Viscount Cranbourne) did not think that such a thing as that would answer the purposes intended. It appeared to him that the best means of disinfection should be first ascertained, and that having been done, the use of them should be rigorously enforced in central places.
§ SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the Government had been in correspondence with railway companies with reference to the cleansing of their trucks; as to the matter under consideration, he would suggest a clause providing that every railway company or person in the habit of carrying cattle in Great Britain should, before the 25th of March next, thoroughly cleanse and disinfect with lime water or some other efficient means all cattle trucks and cattle pens used by them, and should not place in them any animals before they were so disinfected. He would propose such a clause, because he desired to place the responsibility, in the first instance, upon the railway companies, and not upon the Government, But, at the same time, he would agree to the 858 insertion of a special provision of some such character as the following:—
That any officer appointed in writing under the President or Vice President of the Board of Trade, or any inspector appointed by a local authority in the district of such an authority, may enter upon the premises of any such company or persons, and inspect all trucks belonging to such company or persons, and require them or him to cleanse and disinfect them in such a manner as he may direct, and any truck which shall be insufficiently cleansed or disinfected," &c.
§ MR. HUNTsaid, the Bill was meant to be simply a temporary measure, the operation of which would extend only to the 25th of March, before which time the Government would, he hoped, have passed a general measure. There would, under the circumstances, he thought, be no great difficulty in throwing the duty of inspecting the trucks and seeing that they were properly cleansed and disinfected upon Government officers; especially as those trucks would not be much in use for the next month, and might very easily be collected together by the various railway companies at some particular station. The duty of inspection would, in his opinion, be likely to be much more efficiently performed by persons armed with the authority of the Government than if it were confided to local agents who might not be duly qualified for its discharge.
MR. LOCKE KINGsuggested the postponement of the clause and to bring it up on the Report, as the Committee seemed, as matters stood, to be proceeding very much in the dark.
§ LORD ROBERT MONTAGUasked, whether the proposed inspection and cleansing were to take place once for all and to be done, or were to be continued? In the latter case, it would be well to consider whether it was desirable to introduce a new principle into our legislation by departing from that laid down in the Local Government Acts, under which the expense of removing a nuisance was levied on those by whom it was caused.
§ MR. ACLANDsaid, there was no use in arguing the question after the intimation made by the Secretary of State to the effect that he would bring up a clause dealing with it.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEcould not see that hon. Members were precluded by that intimation from making such suggestions as they might deem advisable. He should propose that the words "vessels and there appurtenances" should be added after the word "railways."
§ SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that the hon. Member for Warwickshire raised a different question from that which was under discussion, and which related to the movement of cattle within Great Britain. He was not aware that the Government had any power over foreign vessels.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEobserved, that there was a large coasting trade in cattle carried on by steamers belonging to this country; and it was to that class of vessels that he desired particular attention should be paid.
§ MR. CARNEGIEexpressed a hope that the railway companies would be made to pay the expense of disinfecting their own cattle trucks.
§ MR. ACLAND moved that the clause he postponed.
§ MR. KNIGHTsaid, he did not think either the proposition of the Home Secretary or that of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire quite satisfactory; but the Committee might go on discussing them, for he disliked the idea of postponing everything.
§ COLONEL DOUGLAS PENNANTstated that one large railway company had issued orders to their officers for the cleansing of their trucks; and that being so, he did not see why other railway companies should not do the same, instead of throwing the expense on the country. He was very much inclined to support the proposition of the Home Secretary.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be postponed."—(Mr. Acland.)
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 96; Noes 86: Majority 10.
§ Clause 36 withdrawn.
§ Clauses 37 and 38 agreed to.
§ Clause 39 (Penalty for refusing to produce a licence).
§ MR. HUNTproposed after the words "any justice," to add the words "parish officer," so as to enable the overseer of a parish, in the absence of any other authority, to require the production of a licence.
VISCOUNT CRANBOURNEsuggested that it would be better to follow the analogy of the Game Act, and enable "any person" to require the production of the licence.
§ This Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. [cl. 33.]
§ Clause 40 (Penalty for false Declaration) agreed to.
860§ Clause 41 (Application of Penalties).
§ MR. WALDEGRAVE-LESLIEsaid, he would beg to call the attention of the hon. Member (Mr. Hunt) to this clause. No provision was made in it for the application of Penalties in Scotland.
§ MR. WALDEGRAVE-LESLIE, seeing that the Lord Advocate was not in his place, begged to move the omission of the words "in England," so that the clause might apply equally to England and Scotland.
MR. BARINGsaid, that as the clause stood half the penalties were to go to the informer. He proposed to insert such words as should make the whole of the penalties payable to the county, as in the Cattle Diseases Bill.
VISCOUNT CRANBOURNEsaid, the great obstacle to enforcing the stoppage of traffic was the difficulty of procuring information. The only hope they had of carrying the Bill into effect was to induce the inhabitants of the country to bring offenders to justice, and the best way of doing so was to appeal to the cupidity of informers, so as to meet any local luke-warmness. He therefore trusted the Committee would not alter the clause.
§ MR. CARNEGIEhad been informed that it was found impossible to carry out the Orders of the Privy Council until it was publicly announced that half the penalty would go to the informer.
§ Question, That the words "in England" stand part of the clause, put, and negatived.
§ Clause further amended by words making one-half the penalty to credit of county rate.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to. [cl. 35.]
§ Clauses 42 to 44 agreed to.
§ Clause 45 withdrawn.
§ Clause 3 (Interpretation clause).
MR. BARINGproposed, with regard to the word "beast," that the same interpretation should be adopted as in the Cattle Diseases Bill.
MR. HARDYremarked that the Government measure gave no interpretation respecting footpaths and bridle roads, and that, consequently, there was a great probability of the regulations being, to a certain extent, evaded.
§ SIR JAMES FERGUSSONstated that 861 it was highly desirable to stop the traffic on the drove-roads so common in Scotland, over which animals frequently travelled a considerable distance. He therefore proposed that the term "highway" should mean any turnpike, drove, or public road either in England or Scotland,
§ MR. HUNTsaid, that the word "beast" had been selected because it was a singular noun; the word "cattle" was plural, and would be inconvenient. The whole Bill was drawn up in the singular number, and if the hon. Gentleman's suggestion were adopted the Bill would not only be ungrammatical, but as unintelligible as he believed the Government Bill was.
MR. BARINGsaid, their object had been to get the Bill into a working shape. The terms "borough" and "county" were used in the present Bill in a different sense from that in which they were employed in the Government measure. If the two Bills, however, were to work at all, they must work upon the same footing. He did not for one moment wish to interfere with the hon. Member's Bill, but he thought it would greatly save the time of the Committee if the hon. Member would withdraw the clause and bring in a fresh one as far as possible in conformity with the measure introduced by the Government.
§ MR. HUNTsaid, that the words "borough" and "county" were employed in his Bill in the ordinary sense attaching to those terms, while the Government in their measure had bestowed upon them an artificial meaning. He thought that the author of the Bill might be allowed to put his own interpretation upon the words used in the Bill ["No, no!"], and not be compelled to accept the definition placed upon them by its opponents.
§ SIR EDWARD BULLERthought that the word "cattle" might be employed, and that it might be stated in the Bill to mean "cow," "bull," and soon, and to be used to represent both the singular and the plural noun. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Northamptonshire had not hesitated to employ the word in some instances, for he styled the authorities referred to by the Bill as "cattle inspectors" and "cattle officers," not as "beast inspectors" and "beast officers."
VISCOUNT CRANBOURNEthought that if the Committee wasted their time over such miserable technicalities the country would hardly give them credit for being actuated by a sincere desire to put a stop to this disease. The word "beast" alone 862 appeared calculated to lead to some forty or fifty Amendments, and other words seemed to be likely to lead to similar results.
§ MR. ACLANDcontended that there was no intention of impeding the measure; but it was necessary, for the guidance of the magistrates by whom the two Acts were to be put into operation, that they should be brought into uniformity. He would suggest to the hon. Member for Northamptonshire whether it would not be better for him, between then and the following morning, to consult the intelligent officer who was in the habit of assisting the Government in framing their measures, and see if the two Bills could not be brought more into conformity one with the other.
§ MR. HUNTwould suggest that the Interpretation clause should be agreed to as it stood, and by the time that the Report was brought up he would see if he could bring the Bill more into harmony with that introduced by the Government—a result which he was very desirous of attaining.
§ SIR JAMES FERGUSSON moved to add words in order to include in the term "highway" the drove roads in Scotland.
§ Words added.
§ Words were then added to the definitions.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to. [cl. 3.]
§ Clause 4 struck out.
§ Clauses 28 to 34, inclusive, struck out.
§ MR. HUNTbrought up a new clause in lieu of Clause 4 (What Beasts to be deemed sound, what diseased)—
For the Purposes of this Act, an Animal shall be deemed sound if and when it is not affected with the Cattle Plague, and has not, within Thirty Days, been in contact with any Animal so affected, and has not within Thirty Days, been in or on any Building or Yard or Field where any Animal so affected has been kept, unless that Building or Yard or Field has been effectually cleansed and disinfected at least Thirty Days previous to the Beast being placed in or on the same.
§ Clause agreed to. [cl. 4.]
§
MR. HUNT moved after the 35th clause to add a new clause (Restriction on Dogs)—
Each Local Authority may from Time to Time order that Dogs be not allowed to go at large, not under the Control of their Owner, or his or her Servant or Servants, in the District of the Local Authority, either absolutely or except in conformity with Conditions prescribed by the Order, and may by any such Order authorize any Constable or Peace Officer or other Person to destroy any Dog going at large in contravention
863
of the Order, and may from Time to Time vary, suspend, or revoke any such Order; and every such Order, while in force, shall he sufficient Warrant for any Person acting in pursuance thereof.
§ SIR GEORGE GREYasked whether it was intended by the clause that a man should not take out his dogs with him. Would it affect packs of hounds? What did dogs "at large" mean?
§ MR. KNIGHTproposed to add "without an owner," or "that is not in charge of its owner."
§ SIR EDWARD BULLERsaid, that dogs frequently went round to butchers' shops and slaughterhouses, and then to farm-houses.
§ After discussion, Amendment to add the words—"not under the control of his owner, or his or her servant or servants"—agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, added to the Bill. [cl. 29.]
§ SIR CHARLES RUSSELL moved to add after Clause 34 a new clause (Restriction on Movement of Sheep, &c). The object he had in view was, as it were, to give a clean bill of health to sheep moving about from one place to another. He had received a letter from the chief manager of a large market with which he had some connection, pointing out the great inconvenience which was now experienced from the total stoppage of that market under the Orders in Council, which were strictly carried into effect in the county where the market town was situated. That market was entirely closed, and would not be opened until some such security as that which he had mentioned was given. According to the clause, no sheep, lamb, &c., could be moved into the district of any local authority without the licence of a justice having jurisdiction within the district, such licence to be obtained upon certain specified conditions.
§ VISCOUNT MILTONexpressed his opinion that sheep were likely to carry the disease. Hair and wool were very nearly allied chymically.
§ MR. KNIGHTobserved, that it seemed quite certain that sheep did not take the disease.
§ MR. DENTremarked that in his county there had been an almost entire restriction of the moving of sheep, and this had been attended with very great inconvenience.
§ MR. LIDDELLhoped the clause would be withdrawn. The Committee had not been afforded sufficient time to consider it.
§ SIR MATTHEW RIDLEYcould assure the Committee that in his county very, much inconvenience had been felt in consequence of the restriction of the movement of sheep. This had become an important question, because we must make up by mutton for the loss of beef.
§ SIR CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, that the practical effect of his clause would be to facilitate the moving of sheep and get rid of the inconvenience which hon. Members complained of. His object was simply to prevent the persons from moving sheep which had been in contact with diseased cattle. If his clause was added to the Bill all a drover would have to do was to go with his licence to a justice of the district into which he brought sheep and have that licence backed, which he would have no difficulty in doing if the animals had not been brought from a place where they had been in contact with diseased beasts. He had spoken to a great number of farmers on the subject, and they were all in favour of his clause.
LORD BURGHLEYadmitted the inconvenience of which so many hon. Members had complained; but he felt bound to support the clause, because he believed that sheep carried the disease about the country.
§ MR. GEORGE CORNWALL LEGHsuggested that it was not a question as to whether sheep took the disease or did not take it; but one as to whether they would carry it. He was sure that pigs carried it, for he had suffered from pigs being introduced into a neighbour's yard, which had been previously in an infected place. He thought the clause was necessary.
§ MR. HUNTsupported the introduction into the Bill of the clause proposed by the hon. Member for Berkshire (Sir Charles Russell). The sheep-pox had broken out very recently in Northamptonshire, and the Government at once issued an Order giving power to local authorities to refuse to allow sheep to be brought without a licence into their districts. In issuing this Order the Government had acted most properly, and the House ought to adopt a similar course by adopting the proposed clause.
§ MR. M'LARENsaid, that the adoption of the proposed clause would cause the greatest inconvenience in Scotland. Flocks of sheep on their way to Edinburgh, or to England, had often to pass through several 865 counties, and the local authorities of any one of these counties might, by refusing a licence, stop the further progress of the flock. That sheep did not carry the infection was proved by an experiment lately tried at Edinburgh, where a number of sheep were kept for a certain time with diseased cattle, and were then placed with sound cattle; not one of the latter took the disease.
§ SIR GEORGE GREYopposed the adoption of the clause, which he thought would have some very inconvenient results.
§ SIR JAMES FERGUSSON, in answer to the remarks of the Member For Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren), said, that the proposed clause was only intended to be in force until the 25th of March, and that before that time flocks of sheep were never moved from place to place in the Highlands of Scotland.
§ Clause negatived.
§ MR. AYRTON, in moving that the Chairman be ordered to report Progress, asked the hon. Member for Northamptonshire whether he seriously intended to prohibit the removal of all cattle from the place where they might be landed upon importation? He put that question with especial reference to the circumstances of the metropolis.
§ MR. HUNTsaid, he was anxious, in the case of seaports other than the port of London, to permit cattle to be moved upon their arrival from the place of landing to the nearest slaughterhouse, a distance which he fixed roughly at 500 yards; but on that point he was anxious to consult the views of representatives of those seaports. The Metropolitan Market, however, was six miles in a straight line from the port of London, and as there was no other sea port similarly situated, he was quite aware that a stand-up fight must take place between the metropolitan Members and himself.
§ MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, he had received representations from two or three of the largest steampacket companies concerned in bringing foreign cattle to the port of London, and he was persuaded that their interests, and the interests of the consumer, would be greatly interfered with by the Bill.
§ MR. HUNThoped the Motion for reporting Progress would not be pressed. There were two or three clauses which he was anxious to propose, giving power to the cattle owner to prevent trespass on his 866 land, and providing for the publication of an abstract of the Act.
§ SIR GEORGE GREYhoped the hon. Member did not intend to devolve upon him the preparation of the abstract. He suggested that the hon. Member should give notice in writing of the exact terms of his clause affecting the metropolis, and that the Bill should be reported with a view to its being printed, thereby enabling Members to see exactly what they had agreed to.
§ MR. HUNTsaid, he was willing to adopt the suggestion on the understanding that the Bill would be re-committed only as to the now clauses.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ On Motion of Mr. HUNT, a clause giving power to the owner of any cattle affected by disease to prevent trespassers entering on his land, after notice, was read a second time pro formâ.
MR. BARINGsuggested that the clause should be considered as added to the Bill pro formâ, with a view of being re-committed.
§ Clause agreed to, pro formâ. [cl. 39.]
§ Then the following new clauses were proposed and agreed to, pro formâ, in order to their being printed, and re-committed:—
§ Clause—
§ 24. Power for Cattle-owner to prevent Trespass on his Land.—Clause A.
§ 25. Publication of Abstract of Act,—Clause B.
§ 26. Provision as to removal of Beasts brought by Sea.—Clause C.
§ 27. As to Right to turn out Beasts on Commons.—Clause D.
§ 28. Diseased Beasts not to be turned out on Commons.—Clause E.
§ 29. Defining Counties to which certain Parishes belong.—Clause F.
§ 30. Appointment of general Cattle Inspectors.—Clause G.
§ 31. Inspection of Cattle Sheds.—Clause H.
§ 32. Proclamation of Infected Districts.—Clause I.
§ 33. Relaxation of Prohibition by Local Authority to be approved by Secretary of State after Lady Day.—Clause J.
MR. BANKS STANHOPEinquired when the House could receive accurate Returns of the number of attacks from the cattle plague during the last and preceding week.
§ SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that the Returns were made, not to the Home Office, but to the Privy Council, and he would make inquiry on the subject.
MR. BANKS STANHOPEsaid, that some alarm prevailed in the country, it 867 being apprehended that there had been a serious increase above what was known of the progress of the disease.
§ House resumed.
§ Bill reported; to be printed, as amended [Bill 24]; re-committed, in respect of the Interpretation Clause, the Clauses added in Committee, and any new Clauses to be proposed, for Thursday.