SECOND READING. (Hansard, 13 February 1868)

§ MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, he wished to make some inquiry of the Government with respect to this Bill. In 1866 a Committee of this House was appointed to consider the question of the trade in animals, and among other subjects which they considered was the propriety of establishing 691 in London a market for foreign cattle separate from that in which our home cattle were sold. Although there was some evidence of authority in support of the establishment of separate markets, the Committee came to the unanimous conclusion that the weight of evidence was against that proposal, and that it was not desirable to establish a separate market for the sale of foreign cattle. The Committee were of opinion that it would be a serious restriction upon the foreign cattle trade to deprive importers of the right to send their cattle to the largest cattle-market in London, which is attended by the greater number of buyers. They thought that such a restriction would diminish the importation of foreign cattle, and increase the price of meat to the inhabitants of the metropolis; and they were further of opinion that it was not right to impose the same restrictions on all foreign cattle, no matter whether they did or did not come from a country in which cattle plague existed. But this Bill, as he understood it, proposed to subject the whole cattle trade to new and serious restrictions; and that foreign cattle could only be sold in a market to be established some eight or ten miles from the metropolis, and to be removed from thence only after being slaughtered. He believed it was the universal opinion of the trade, that this would place the foreign cattle trade at a great inconvenience, and would tend to diminish the competition. He thought they ought to hear from the Government what new evidence had come into their possession to induce them to bring in a measure in direct opposition to the unanimous Report of a Committee of this House, made so recently as 1866. He did not intend to oppose the second reading; but he thought the Bill contained a very dangerous principle. He hoped that if read a second time the Bill would be referred to a Select Committee, before which evidence might be taken as to its bearing upon the interests of the consumer. He was as anxious as any man could be to take all reasonable precautions against the introduction of the rinderpest among our herds, but he must decline being carried beyond what the necessities of the case required. He did not see why every precaution might not be taken to prevent the spread of the cattle plague, without putting these permanent restrictions upon the foreign cattle trade of the metropolis.

§ LORD ROBERT MONTAGU

reminded the right hon. Gentleman that the Report of the Committee to which he had referred contained this sentence—"It seems desirable where practicable in large towns to separate the fat and store cattle markets." That was the object of this Bill, which he proposed to refer to a Select Committee, one-half of the Members of which should be appointed by the Committee of Selection, and the other half by that House, and which would have power to take evidence upon the whole subject. As he understood that no opposition was to be offered to the progress of the Bill, he would not trouble the House by entering into the question. But if, on the other hand, the House wished him to do so, he was quite prepared to argue the question at length, and to show good and valid grounds for entertaining the measure.