CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) BILL. (Hansard, 30 July 1869)

THE EARL OF EEVERSHAM
said, that although the Bill so far as it went gave, no doubt, considerable satisfaction to many persons, the impression, at the same time, prevailed among the agricultural classes that it did not go far enough in the direction of imposing restrictions on the importation of foreign cattle. He should, therefore, move that the following new clause be inserted after clause 20:— Notwithstanding anything herein-before contained, no foreign animals shall be landed at any other than the ports or parts of ports so defined by the Privy Council, and such animals shall not be moved alive there from, except for slaughter to slaughter-houses adjacent thereto, licensed by the Privy Council, or except after undergoing a quarantine of not less than fourteen days, and being pronounced free from disease: Provided always, that such regulation shall not apply to the following animals if conveyed in vessels which shall not have touched during a period of three months preceding at any port of any country which may have been affected with cattle plague or sheep-pox—namely, animals imported from any country in which during the previous twelve months cattle plague or sheep pox shall not have existed, and through which animals shall not have passed from countries so affected.

EARL DE GREY AND RIPON
said, it was quite impossible for him. to agree to the clause of his noble Friend, which differed very little from one which, when moved in the House of Commons, was rejected by a large majority. He could understand, although he entirely disapproved, the adoption of a system under which every foreign animal brought into this country should be slaughtered at the port of landing; and he could also understand the principle on which this Bill was based—namely, that of intrusting large powers to a Department to be exercised under the authority of Parliament. He was unable, however, to comprehend how such a principle as was embodied in the noble Earl's clause could be adopted. If there were a "hard and fast" line drawn by Act of Parliament, the inevitable result would be that the parties with whom that Department of the Government had to deal would take their stand on the enactment and insist that the Department should be guided by it 990 and by it alone. The result of the clause, if carried, would be to prevent healthy cattle from coming into the country whenever it could be shown that there had been a single case of disease in any part of any country through which the healthy cattle had passed. Such a provision would be totally inconsistent with the principle of the Bill, and he trusted therefore their Lordships would not agree to it.

EARL DE GREY AND RIPON
said, some people thought that under the clause as it stood the railway companies would only be obliged to fill their troughs on a demand being made to that effect. To remove all doubt, he moved the insertion of words providing that every railway company should have a supply, to the satisfaction of the Privy Council, of water and food for animals at such stations as the Privy Council should from time to time by order direct; and that animals travelling along the line should be supplied therewith on the request in writing of the owner of such animals or of any persons in charge of them.

THE BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOL
said, that in his remarks last night he had ventured to suggest that twelve hours, rather than the thirty hours mentioned in the Bill, should be the maximum length of time during which these poor suffering animals should remain without a supply of food and water. He found that in 12 & 13 Vic, c. 92, there was a power to supply food and water to animals which might be impounded after twelve hours, and the owner who neglected to provide food and water was made liable to the charges incurred by the person who did so provide them, and for this reason he had thought that twelve hours should be the limit in this case. Questions had been addressed by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to the most eminent vete- 991 rinary surgeons in the kingdom as to whether, considering the natural requirements of these animals and their increased thirst when crowded together in railway trucks and steam-boats, they ought to remain longer than twelve hours without food and water. The whole of the answers sent in were decidedly in the negative, and some of the writers said that the time ought to be much less than twelve hours. He might state that those answers were all given without fee or remuneration of any kind. However, he had the opportunity last night of conferring with benevolent persons who were deeply interested in that subject, and in consequence of certain difficulties which had been pointed out to him in connection with the "untrucking" of those poor animals, he thought he would, perhaps, be doing the best he could do for their interest in adopting the suggestion made to him out of pure kindness towards those suffering creatures, that he should fix the limit at twenty hours instead of twelve by his Amendment. He therefore proposed to insert twenty hours for the thirty hours named in the clause. By that Amendment he must abide, and he trusted their Lordships would be pleased to spare those dumb creatures those last ten hours of suffering—the worst in their whole journey.

§ THE EARL OF ROMNEY
said, he was sorry the right rev. Prelate had not insisted on twelve hours. Twenty hours he thought excessive. In the United States of America the different States had their own laws on this point, and some States had fixed eight hours and others ten hours as the utmost limits.

EARL DE GREY AND RIPON
said, he entirely sympathized with the object which the right rev. Prelate and the noble Earl who had spoken last had at heart, and he had a suggestion to make which he trusted would meet their views. There was no doubt considerable difficulty connected with "untrucking"—a process from which the animals suffered very much; and to enact off hand by a provision which was to take effect immediately that water was to be supplied every twelve hours to cattle 992 travelling by railway would, he thought, be a somewhat hasty and ill-advised proceeding. He would therefore suggest that the clause should be left as it stood, but that words should be inserted requiring water to be supplied to cattle after they had travelled thirty consecutive hours, or such other period, not less than twelve hours, as the Privy Council might by Order in Council from time to time direct—making thirty hours the maximum. That would leave it open for the Privy Council to consider what arrangements might be fairly and judiciously made with the railway companies in the matter.

THE BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOL
was grateful to the noble Earl for the suggestion he had just made, but felt it to be his duty to stand out for a maximum not exceeding twenty hours, as the period within which food and water should be supplied.

EARL DE GREY AND RIPON
said, there was no doubt that many cattle now came from Scotland in very good condition, and he could not advise their Lordships at once and without due consideration to substitute twenty hours for thirty.