COMMITTEE.

HC Deb 16 February 1866 vol 181 cc600-58

[The Bill having been Committed, Re-committed, 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. 22.]

Order for Committee read.

MR. HUNT

said, he wished to put a Question to the right hon Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department relative to the course of proceeding with the Government measure for the suppression of the cattle plague. He understood from the right hon. Baronet that the Government would be willing to consent to this arrangement—in fact, it was suggested by the right hon. Gentleman to his consideration—that the Government should proceed with their Cattle Diseases Bill, accepting the decision of the Committee on Thursday night with regard to the prevention of the movement of cattle by railway; that the question of the movement of cattle in other ways should be left for consideration in a future Bill; that the clauses discussed on Thursday night should terminate with the words added by the Committee; that the clauses relating to compulsory slaughter, compensation, and rating should be retained; and that the remaining clauses should be transferred to the future Bill; or, if the Government wished it, considered as part of the Bill he had himself brought in.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, he had told the hon. Member in reply to a note from him that he would readily concur in an arrangement that would facilitate the speedy passage of the Bill. In asking for leave to bring in the Bill, he stated that he thought it possible some of the provisions might be separated from others in order that those which were most urgent might be passed without delay; and on the part of the Government he was quite ready now to take that course. The clauses that related to slaughtering and compensation had been agreed to by the House; those that related to rating and the funds out of which the compensation was to be paid had not, and it would be necessary to proceed with those. After so large a majority had affirmed that for a limited time no cattle should be moved by railway, the Government would defer to the decision. While retaining their opinion as to the amount of serious inconvenience that might arise, they would not think it respectful to the House to reopen the question. Therefore he was quite willing to take the Bill, with the clauses relating to slaughtering, compensation, and rating, that prohibiting the removal of cattle for a limited time by railway, and two or three other clauses, inclusive of those relating to penalties, with respect to which he thought there would be no difference of opinion, leaving for consideration in another Bill the regulations with regard to the removal of cattle on highways, and other matters of a more permanent character, the consideration of which might occupy a considerable time. The result of the arrangement would be that the orders which were now in force would continue in operation until the 1st of March, and might be continued for a longer time, so far as they were not inconsistent with any of the provisions of the Bill.

MR. HUNT

said, he wished to know whether there would be any objection to his Bill being committed pro formâ that evening, in order that he might insert certain Amendments, and so give the House an opportunity of considering them.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, that there would not be the least objection.

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 21 (Regulations as to Movement of Cattle).

MR. HUNT,

who had given notice of an Amendment, to insert after"1866"that No cattle shall be moved along any highway, or any canal navigation, or river, except as in this Act expressly authorized, said, that in accordance with the arrangement made he proposed to withdraw the Amendment, and to strike out the rest of the clause after"1866."

SIR FITZROY KELLY

said, he heard the proposition to strike out the rest of the clause with great regret. He approved the Resolution come to with regard to the movement of cattle by railway, but it appeared to him that the measure would be ineffectual if the passage of cattle along highways was to be left unchecked. Local authorities would adopt diverse regulations, which would occasion great difficulty, more especially in the contiguous parts of adjoining counties, such as Leicester and Derby.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he thought his hon. and learned Friend did not apprehend quite distinctly the question at issue. The question was not, as he seemed to suppose, whether the subject of the movement of cattle on highways was to be abandoned; it was not even whether it was to be delayed. That was a question not yet discussed, and one which was almost certain, in the opinion of the best judges, to create a good deal of discussion. The question now under consideration was whether they should delay the operation of that which they had already fixed upon until they could also fix upon something else which might be desirable or not, but which the House had yet to decide whether it was or was not practicable. It did not, in his opinion, seem desirable to stop the operation of the clauses in question. The Bill, in any case, must be one of compromise, and he hoped the same disposition would be shown in all quarters as would be manifested by the Government in regard to the decision of the House, which the Government last night had most reluctantly yielded to.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, he gathered that all the provisions relating to the movement of cattle on the highways were to be postponed. He thought it very important the House should know when the second Bill of the Government would be introduced, and whether it was likely to become the law of the land by the 1st of March next, when he understood the operation of the Orders in Council came to an end. What would be the condition of the question after the 1st of March, during the intervening time, if the second Bill proposed to be introduced did not become law by that time? He understood from the Home Secretary that all the clauses relating to compensation were to be proceeded with now, but that those which related to the removal of cattle by highway were to be postponed. He should have thought that the clauses which pointed out the funds from which compensation was to be derived would be more likely to create angry and protracted discussion than those which related to the movement of cattle by highway. If that were so, would it not be better that the clauses which related to compensation should be postponed rather than the others?

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, the noble Lord was mistaken in supposing that the Orders in Council would expire on the 1st March. They would certainly do so unless renewed, but the same power under the Act of Parliament which authorized the Council to make those Orders would enable it, if the necessity arose, to continue them for a longer time than was originally intended. He had that morning received a communication from the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt), to the effect that he wished the House to affirm the principle as to the non-removal of cattle on highways, while at the same time he was desirous to postpone the consideration of the exceptions. He (Sir George Grey) objected to that on the ground that it was really difficult to determine how the principle would work without seeing the exceptions to it. His advice to the hon. Member was to commit his Bill pro formâ, and then the House would be able to see his various exceptions. If they were such that the hon. Gentleman could satisfy the House that no inconvenience would arise from the provision with respect to removal of cattle on highways, then they could proceed with a measure based upon that principle. In the meantime the Orders in Council would remain in force.

MR. HUNT

said, that he had been prepared to proceed with his Bill through every stage, before entering into the arrangement to which he had just come with the Government. He had all his exceptions ready, and had even stated to the House on the preceding night what those exceptions would be. He thought it would be convenient that hon. Members should see those exceptions in print, and ascertain if they were sufficiently numerous, or were put in proper words. With that view he had suggested that his Bill should be committed pro formâ, to give hon. Members an opportunity of seeing his exceptions.

MR. OWEN STANLEY

said, he thought there should be a clause to the effect that every railway, canal, and other company engaged in carrying dead meat, should, as soon as the meat was taken out, cause every penfold, truck, &c, to be properly cleansed, disinfected, and washed out. There should be powers of inspection for this purpose. They had found at Holyhead the trucks in a filthy state, and had written to every department of the London and North Western Railway Company to have them cleansed, but nothing effective was done. In fact, they were laughed at by the railway authorities, because they had no power to compel those parties to have their trucks cleansed. Complaints had been made to the Home Office and to other departments, both by the Member for Carnarvonshire and himself, but without effect. All that was done was to forward the letters to the London and North Western Railway Company, and no notice was taken of them. He had received a letter from the chief constable at Holyhead, stating that on the morning he wrote twenty or more trucks had come in in a most filthy state.

SIR JAMES FERGUSSON

said, he wished to ask the Chairman if it were competent for the hon. Member on this clause to discuss this subject of cleansing the trucks.

THE CHAIRMAN

We are now on the 21st clause, relating to the removal of cattle.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, that the hon. Member would see that the subject to which he had called attention was dealt with in a subsequent clause.

THE CHAIRMAN

Does the hon. Member for Northamptonshire wish to withdraw his Amendment?

MR. HUNT

I propose to withdraw the second paragraph after "866."

SIR FITZROY KELLY

said, supposing there were three or four counties adjoining each other in which, perhaps, the cattle plague might not have broken out, or in which it had subsided, and that the local authorities either had not made any regulations, or that those regulations had expired and not been renewed, he wanted to know whether, with respect to these three or four counties, there was to be no restriction and no legislation at all?

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, that there were general regulations applying to all counties, requiring that every owner of diseased cattle should give notice to the inspectors. A penalty was imposed by the present Orders on any person who removed a diseased animal, or any animal that had been in contact with it, from one place to another, without the sanction of the Government inspector. The Orders would remain in force until Parliament had decided respecting the removal of cattle by highway.

MR. LOCKE-KING

said, he wished to call attention to the inconvenience that must arise from at once stopping suddenly the supply of cattle by railway to the metropolis. If it were so stopped, where was the supply for the metropolis to come from. If time were given for preparation he had no doubt that a great number could be obtained, but the machinery was not ready, and the distress in London would be very great. How could the dead-meat markets supply the wants of three millions of people. He therefore suggested that the clause should come into operation at some more distant day than was named.

MR. HUNT

said, that arrangements were now being made by railway companies to bring up dead meat. He believed that butchers and sales-masters in London would be enabled, by sending orders by telegraph, to get meat in sufficient time.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to. [cl. 17.]

Clauses 22 to 24 struck out.

Clause 25(Movement of Cattle, &c, within the Metropolis).

SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE

said, he understood the clause was to be withdrawn, but he desired to call the attention of the Government to the fact that the present dead-meat market was decidedly inadequate to meet the supply of dead meat at present required for the metropolis. He believed that great improvements were in contemplation, and that already great improvements had been made; but it was a matter which the Government, in his opinion, ought to take up with a view to see what could be done by means of loans for new markets or otherwise to remedy this great defect. This was the more imperative as some of the local authorities of London were Members of the Privy Council. A great number of persons living on the Surrey side of the river were engaged in the hide trade, and cutting off the supply of hides from them would have an effect similar to that which cutting off the cotton supply would have in Lancashire. He would suggest the propriety of establishing a market for sea-borne cattle on the south side of the Thames.

MR. LOCKE

said, he agreed with the hon. Baronet that the establishment of a foreign meat market on the south side of the river would be a great benefit.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, the House would understand that in this clause the Committee were making no change in the existing arrangements, for it merely embodied the Orders in Council applicable to the metropolis. By existing regulations, coupled with the decision come to by the Committee on the preceding evening, no cattle could leave the London district alive, and none come by railway from other parts of the country into the metropolis. But London being the chief port for the importation of foreign cattle, such cattle could be brought to the London market, and it would be a serious consideration, when the Committee came to restrict the movement of cattle on the highway, how far that could be done in London consistently with the necessary supply of meat to the metropolis.

Clause struck out.

Clause 26 (Notice of Disease in Cattle).

MR. ARTHUR PEEL

said, he had no objection to the principle of the clause, but he wished to say a few words with reference to the mode of carrying it out. Every owner of a diseased animal was to give notice to the inspector or local authority, and by the 13th clause the local authority was to order every such animal to be destroyed. Now, the inspectors were not very numerous, and they might suppose the case of a farmer giving due notice, and the inspector, through being over-worked or from neglect, failing to come to inspect the animal until after it had died. It could not be said to have been slaughtered, but surely the farmer would be entitled to compensation. As, however, the clause stood, he would not be able to obtain it. It was a question whether he had not a legal remedy against the inspector for his neglect, and it was probable that if the farmer belonged to an association the latter also might have the same remedy. He wished to ask whether, in view of such cases, it would not be advisable to make compensation where notice had been given, and where the animal had died before it was inspected.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, the hon. Member was correct in supposing that the owner of the animal would have a right of action against the inspector if he sustained loss from his wilful neglect. That legal right would be, he thought, the best security for the inspector doing his duty.

Clause struck out.

Clauses 27 and 28 struck out.

Clause 29 (Public Exposure of Diseased Cattle).

MR. MITFORD

said, that in his neighbourhood there were commons extending far and wide over the whole of the county. The farmers had the right of turning their cattle upon these commons, and it would be desirable in a subsequent clause to give them the means of ingress and egress to those places. Unless some further restrictions were, however, proposed, there would be a chance of an infected animal finding its way to these commons and propagating the disease through the whole of the county. He ventured to hope that the Home Secretary and his hon. Friend (Mr. Hunt), would see whether they could not prevent infected cattle finding their way to these commons.

Clause struck out.

Clause 30 struck out.

Clause 31 (Expenses of Local Authority).

MR. CARNEGIE

said, that as the Committee had decided to adopt the slaughter and compensation principle the country would have to carry it out. He objected to the Government scheme of raising the money with which to pay the compensation as being unjust and unsound in principle. If the country wanted a man's cow, the country ought to pay for it. When the country required private property, public buildings such as the National Gallery the country paid for it; and if the country wanted cattle from the stockholder the country ought to pay for it. By the Government proposition the assessment would fall the heaviest on those districts that had suffered the most, and those districts that had escaped the disease would escape altogether. Ireland as a breeding country would be benefited by it and ought to assist in the expense. Some counties, like that which he represented, were so thoroughly infected by the disease that he doubted whether the Act would be of much service to them. The cattle plague, however, was a consumer's as well as a producer's question, and he saw no reason why the consumer should not bear his share of the loss. It was urged that local rating would prevent fraud and carelessness, but he thought that might be attained without putting the whole of the expense on the local rates. It was not competent to him to move to take any money from the Consolidated Fund, but he suggested that if his Amendment should be carried the clause should be struck out, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer should bring forward a Bill, by which the money should be provided out of the Consolidated Fund in the first instance, and afterwards by such sanction as might be thought expedient by the House. It was also desirable to have a Bill passed as speedily as possible to prevent the spread of the disease, and he thought it would be better not to encumber the Bill with the compensation clauses, but let them form the subject of another Bill. This Bill was said to have been brought forward on the principle of justice, but instead of that it would inflict injustice, and injustice carried with it the seeds of retribution. It was but natural that those counties which were highly assessed would endeavour more to keep down the rate than to stamp out the disease, and then their costly experiment would become a costly failure. He moved to strike out the words "local rate."

MR. BARROW

said, he thought the person who drew up the Bill must have presumed that by a local rate the county rate would be understood, whereas a county rate could be levied only under the provisions of an Act of Parliament specially referring thereto. The clause should, therefore, be amended so as to authorize the quarter sessions to levy a special county rate under the name of a cattle rate.

MR. AYRTON

said, that before this Amendment was put he had an Amendment to propose to an earlier part of the clause. It was worthy of consideration whether they ought to raise a rate which was to be levied on the particular class that had been visited with this heavy misfortune. He had been much impressed by the able speech of the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Stuart Mill), because he thought that hon. Gentleman had given admirable reasons why such a rate should not be imposed. There was a very large number of stock-owners in the metropolis, and if the owners of dairies there had suffered by having had the infection introduced among their herds because we had an unrestrained trade in cattle for the benefit of the rest of the community, he could not understand why on that account those dairy-owners should be taxed for the benefit of the rest of the community. It seemed to him that there might rather be special reasons for exempting the owners of stock; but he disliked making distinctions in such matters, and preferred that they should be treated as common to all classes. He conceived that in principle the proposed charge should be a national charge. But in practice it could not be so; for the simple reason that they must give power to the local authorities, who must, therefore, be restrained in its exercise by having to bear the consequences. But for that necessity, he should contend that there would be no justice whatever in creating any local charge of the kind. The metropolis, which had done so much to diffuse the plague, and which was so much interested in the cheapness of meat, was as much concerned in the question as the farmers and landowners, and ought to bear its share of the burden. But, on the other hand, if the local authorities had the control of the money of the metropolis they would act differently from what they would do if they were themselves made responsible. He was therefore in favour of the area of taxation being co-extensive with the area of administration. He moved the omission of the words "as to two-third parts thereof" in order to raise the question.

MR. J. STUART MILL

said, the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) had referred to some remarks of his with reference to this subject, and as, in all probability through his own (Mr. Mill's) fault, the hon. and learned Member had not seized the point of his argument, he hoped he might be allowed, with the permission of the Committee, to repeat the substance of what he then said. The hon. and learned Member had laid down a principle which no one could dispute—namely, that taxation ought not to be partial. On that ground he urged that a particular class ought not to be taxed to defray the expense of compensation for the consequences of a calamity by which they had already suffered to so great an extent. But his (Mr. Stuart Mill's) argument was grounded expressly on this—that although they suffered more immediately, they would not ultimately suffer more than the rest of the community who were consumers of food. It followed that if they were now to tax the whole of the community in order to give a special indemnity to that class for what they suffered, they would, instead of taxing them, tax the rest of the community in order to relieve them. That was his argument, and nothing he had heard had tended to weaken it; and, consequently, that part of the provision for compensation to which the hon. and learned Member objected, the poll tax on cattle, was the only part which he considered sound in principle. It appeared to him that the valid claim for compensation was not for the burden, but for the inequality of the burden, inasmuch as some cattle owners suffered much less than others, and some not at all. The class on whom the calamity had immediately fallen would, as a class, be compensated in the natural course of things, by the increased price of meat consequent on the diminished supply; but the individuals of the class who had not suffered at all, or who had suffered less than their neighbours, should contribute for the relief of those who had not been so fortunate. In principle, therefore, the tax, whatever it might be, ought to be a rate on land only. Although the clause as it stood was very objectionable, it would be made still more so by the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets.

MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE

said, the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster, showed a great difference between practical and political economical views. To throw the whole burden of the cattle plague upon the land might be in accordance with deep political economical views, but he could not see how the landowner could be ultimately benefited by that. He (Mr. B. Cochrane) considered it unjust that agriculturists should have to bear the whole of the burden, and it was only right and fair that a portion of the charge should be borne by the Consolidated Fund. He denied that by relieving the counties they would act with indiscretion or extravagance, or show any want of vigilance; and he ventured to say, though the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not seem to concur in his views, that the principle best to be adopted in events of national calamity was for the whole country to sympathize with the sufferers. This was a calamity which he ventured to predict, whatever it was now, would in the end become universal, and he thought it was only just to all interests that a portion of the burden should be borne by the Consolidated Fund. That was the spirit in which they had dealt with the distress in Ireland, and with other great public calamities. A sufficient stimulus to careful management on the part of the local authorities would be guaranteed by casting the rest of the charge upon them.

MR. EVANS

said, it was not for him to object to the Motion, but he thought it only due to his constituents, the people of South Derbyshire, to say that they have not asked to have this charge thrown on the Consolidated Fund. They were willing to have it put on the county rate, and some of those with whom he had spoken did not object to a tax on cattle.

SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE

said, he apprehended that any proposal to put this charge on the Consolidated Fund would find an impediment in the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He concurred with the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) that it would be better to have the charge laid on the county rate than to set up the complicated system of a cattle tax. The effect of this cattle disease was prospective, and the fear of it discouraged farmers from the investment of money in any kind of stock. Now, clearly it was our interest not to discourage them still more. On the contrary, all of us were deeply interested in keeping up the breeding of stock. A man who now proposed to invest capital in a dairy farm would be regarded as mad. Already the very high price of milk in the metropolis, and in other large towns, had led to this result— that those who had milch cows were knocking all the calves on the head. These young animals were being destroyed by the thousand. This would have a considerable effect on the future supply of beef. He asked the House to consider where the county rate came from. It was a rate raised exclusively from real property. Trade profits or stock-in-trade did not pay it. It was contributed to by schedules "A" and "B," a fact which ought to satisfy hon. Gentlemen that in the country districts it would come out of the land. And in towns who paid it? The employers of labour. The manufacturers paid it on their own houses and the places in which they carried on their business; but they did not pay it on their trades. One great objection to the proposed tax was the machinery for its collection. It was proposed to collect it in the same manner as the tax on horses was collected—one was to pay on the greatest number of cattle kept within the year; but it was to be remembered that cattle were more like £5 notes than horses in that respect, so often did they change hands. An enormous proportion of the cattle of this country were reared on the hills of Scotland and the mountains of Wales, and afterwards bought up by dealers. Then as to the equality of the tax. A well-bred short-horned yearling might be worth 100 guineas, while a Scotch or Welsh yearling might not be worth as many shillings. He would be the last person to object to the proposed tax merely for the benefit of the landed interest. He did so because he thought that charging the compensation on the county rate would be better for the entire community.

MR. J. B. SMITH

said, that the cattle disease was a national calamity, but this clause dealt with it as if it were a local calamity. He was afraid it would not blow over in six weeks as some supposed, but its effects might be felt for years to come. It was perfectly just that if cattle were to be slaughtered for public objects, that the owners should be compensated. The question was, out of what fund should the compensation be paid? The proposal before the Committee was to pay it by taxing only those counties where the disease prevailed. But besides this taxation, there could be no doubt the people at large would have to bear the burden in the enhanced price of meat. Some hon. Gentlemen anticipated that the price of meat might rise to double its present price, and he would not disguise his apprehensions that it would rise to a price which would be only limited by the ability of the people to consume it; but if this clause were passed to compensate farmers for the slaughter of their cattle out of the county rates, a double burden will be imposed upon the people by being obliged also to pay for the means by which the price of meat will be raised. It was quite clear that in those parts of the country where no disease existed the farmers would be greatly benefited by the enhanced price of cattle. They would be placed in circumstances of prosperity in consequence of the adversity of their neighbours, while by this Bill they are to be exempted from the payment of any county rates or other taxes whatever. It appeared to him that the only just course to meet the calamity would be, not to confine taxation for compensation to the unfortunate counties where the disease existed, and thus tax the people twice over, but to lay a tax upon all the cattle in the kingdom. Such a plan would deal justly with all interests. Farmers would be compensated for such of their cattle as were slaughtered for public objects, and for the remainder would be able to obtain higher prices; while those farmers who were so fortunate as to have suffered nothing from the disease would be great gainers by the rise of price in cattle, after having recouped themselves for their contributions to the cattle rate. This would be in accordance with the course followed in Poland under the visitation of a similar calamity. From the reports forwarded a short time back by the British Consul at Warsaw, it appeared that a law had been made enacting that all suspected animals should be slaughtered indiscriminately, and the objects most likely to spread the disease destroyed or purified. The application of this enactment was intrusted to local committees composed of landed gentlemen who had the strongest possible interest in checking the contagion, which was apparently an entire departure from the custom of intrusting the execution of laws to Government functionaries so general on the Continent. The committees, it was further stated, had acted with great zeal, and were authorized to grant compensation to proprietors of stock slaughtered by their orders, the funds for that purpose being levied by means of a rate imposed on the entire cattle of the country. It seemed to him that that was the only just principle to adopt, and that the present plan would be most unjust, since it went to tax those who had sustained serious loss, and exempted those who had sustained none at all. What was this but saying, "To him that hath shall be given, but from him that hath little shall betaken away even that which he hath."

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

said, that without saying whether he should or should not vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr, Ayrton), he would suggest to the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Carnegie) that a different mode might be adopted of arriving at the result he wished—namely, the deciding what was the best mode of raising the fund for compensation. The hon. Member for Forfarshire proposed to leave out the words "local rate." Now, if the hon. Gentleman merely left out those words, he would surround the question with some degree of confusion. He would therefore ask the hon. Gentleman if he would object to alter the clause by inserting the words Shall be defrayed, two-thirds thereof out of the local rate as defined by this Act, and the remaining one-third out of such monies as are provided by Parliament for that purpose, If the hon. Gentleman had no objection to adopt the suggestion, he for one would go into the lobby and vote for that proposal. He agreed with the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. J. B. Smith) that the cattle plague was a national misfortune, and he could not think it was either just or expedient to raise any part of the compensation fund by a rate on cattle. He thought the hon. Baronet the Member for Peters-field (Sir William Jolliffe) had already disposed of that point. He had, however, no objection whatever to a large portion of the funds being provided by a rate on the rateable property of the country. The money would be locally administered, and therefore it was but fair that a large portion should be paid by owners of property. Still, the misfortune was a national one. There was not a man, woman, or child who would not suffer for it. He submitted, therefore, to the Committee that a portion of the compensation fund ought to come out of the general revenues of the country. In conclusion, he would ask the hon. Member for Forfarshire whether he had any objection to raise the question fairly by adopting the Amendment which he had proposed.

MR. CARNEGIE

said, he was much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for having made the proposal, and would cordially accept the suggestion. He believed, however, that the Motion now before the House would necessarily take precedence of it.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

Sir, I have on various occasions during these debates rcommended the spirit of mutual compromise. I may refer, as a proof that we are animated by this spirit, to the course taken by the Government in acquiescing in the vote of last night. The principle, however, affirmed in that Resolution has its limits, and the hon. Baronet the Member for Petersfield (Sir William Jolliffe) has done me no more than justice in supposing that I should not be disposed to consent to a charge on the Consolidated Fund. To adopt a measure of that kind at a moment's notice is manifestly impossible, and I feel that so strongly that I think it is only fair that I should make this statement in the discharge of my public duty. It would be a thing so novel, so inexpedient, so unexpected, so entirely in the nature of a surprise after what has taken place in this House, that the rapid passage of these enactments would be thereby made entirely impossible. It is necessary to import into the consideration of this question motives of policy very broad and very deep in their character, such as could not possibly be disposed of at a moment's notice. I shall enter upon the subject more fully if the proposal comes to the subject of substantive consideration in discussing the latter part of the clause. The question at present before the House is that raised by my hon. Friend (Mr. Ayrton) with respect to the cattle rate, and his proposal is that the whole of this amount should be raised out of the local rate. Now the question between cattle rate and local rate is an entirely different question from that of the local rate on the one hand and the Consolidated Fund on the other. My hon. Friend has himself stated several objections to contributing towards the compensation of cattle owners out of the general revenues of the country, and the Royal Commission took a strong view of the subject. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe), stated that the principle of local administration is radically involved in this measure, and it is absolutely necessary for its success that these funds should be of a local character. The present question, however, is, whether any portion of the funds should be raised by a cattle rate. A great authority on the subject is present in the House, and we shall be glad to hear his opinion. The Government, however, made the proposal in the Bill on what appeared to us to be good and sufficient grounds. We thought the charging a portion upon cattle was, as far as justice was concerned, a measure the most exactly just which could be adopted. On the other hand, we were met by the objection that the owners of cattle have no special representatives as distinguished from other agriculturists or from other owners of rateable property. But it undoubtedly appeared to us that there is a very special interest of local cattle owners involved in this question. It is very true that the object of this Bill is not compensation for losses; but, although that is not its object, the operation of the Bill, should it be successful, will be, to a very great extent, to give compensation for losses. With regard to the clauses having reference to the sums to be paid for cattle which are slaughtered, we have, rightly or wrongly, adjusted them in such a manner as we think will tend to draw within their operation the whole of the diseased cattle which shall hereafter become subject to the provisions of the Bill. That being so, the operation of the Bill will be to a certain extent to give compensation for losses. With regard to compensation I think, as the hon. Member for Westminster has said, that the cattle owners are not suffering. That expression, though it caused some surprise in the House, appeared to me to be little more than the enunciation of a truism. There can, however, be no doubt that individual owners are suffering extremely, but as a class they are not. All have an interest in stopping the progress of the disease. But who are they who have the greatest interest? They are the cattle dealers in the neighbourhood of the infected places. I must confess that that does appear to me, considering the rate as a local rate, to be a strong argument for placing a part of the charge on the cattle owners. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. J. B. Smith) proposes to impose a tax on all the cattle in the country. Would he tax the cattle of Ireland? [Mr. J. B. SMITH: No.] That is one exception. Would he tax the cattle of Wales? [Mr. J. B. SMITH: Yes.] The hon. Member says he would. The hon. Member says that the cattle owners of Wales, or, at least, of the greater part of Wales, ought to be brought in to share in the calamities of Cheshire. I confess I feel doubtful about the justice of that proposition. It so happens that the cattle owners of Wales are in a peculiar position. With two counties in Wales I am intimately acquainted—Flintshire and Denbighshire. Now, those two counties, with Cambridgeshire, Huntingdonshire, Cheshire, and Forfarshire, have suffered more severely, perhaps, comparing size and head of cattle, than any other counties in the country. There is a large extent of country entirely untouched, and it is a curious fact, as I am informed, that during the twelve years of the cattle plague in the eighteenth century, nine out of those ten counties were never touched. I congratulate the Welsh Members with all my heart that the only county that was touched was Montgomeryshire—a county bordering upon the infected English counties. The two counties that now suffer so severely suffered severely then — Montgomeryshire, which lies close by Shropshire, and Denbighshire. I am by no moans clear about the equity of laying upon the cattle owners of a district a burden which it has not pleased Providence to lay upon them; but that is a matter which may be open to discussion. When these questions come to be considered, I am not sure that we can find community of interest with the other cattle owners among the cattle owners of those parts of Wales which appear to be defended from incursion of the disease by peculiarity of soil, if not of climate, or by the great limestone range. To me it is quite clear we must not consider a national cattle rate as an escape from all the difficulties of the case. The practical objections urged by the hon. Baronet (Sir William Jolliffe) would, of course, be greatly extended in their operation, if the plague be considered as national. Those more happily circumstanced would not be very well pleased at being brought in. This proposition may fairly stand on the principle of the special interest of those cattle owners who are in the immediate neighbourhood of infection. And in that view it is perfectly just, and quite conformable to the principles of the Bill. I do not presume to say that this is a matter upon which we are entitled to form any conclusive opinion; but the ground of special interest induced us to include this proposition. I believe, also, that we gain another important object, the prevention of what would be a great misfortune in this case, a battle between town and country. There is reason to fear that if this subject were not managed in this way a conflict might arise which would waste valuable time we are anxious to spare. We were further encouraged to include it by what happened on the first night of the Session, when, immediately after the excellent speeches of the Mover and the Seconder of the Address, a Gentleman (Mr. Banks Stanhope), who has often and justly been honoured with the confidence of his party, the representative of a most important agricultural district (North Lincolnshire), rose to introduce the whole subject of the cattle plague, and on behalf, as we thought, of many of those among whom he sat, distinctly proposed a rate of a twofold character to be levied on property and and on cattle. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) makes a particular appeal to our compassion on the part of the farmers of that part of London. He thinks they have been specially exposed to contamination by the free trade in cattle carried on among them. Without entering into the vexed question, entirely unsolved, whether the plague was imported from abroad, I must say that rumour has been extremely unjust to the farmers of that part of London, if it be true that they gave no encouragement to a disease like this. They certainly have not a reputation for the cleanliness, the airiness, and the ventilation of their cattle sheds, which are supposed to contribute materially to the extension or the extinction of disease. However, this is not a matter which affects the question under consideration. I have stated generally the reasons which induced the Government to include the proposal in the Bill, and trust the House will accept it.

MR. LOWE

As to the battle, Sir, between town and country I may say Graiâ pandetur ab urbe, which I will translate freely—"the case for the country is taken up by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets." My right hon. Friend has adopted the arguments of the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Stuart Mill) who is, I am afraid, a little too clever for us in the House. He reasons with a degree of closeness and refinement which some of us, at least, are not quite accustomed to. I must, however, though in fear and trembling, try to analyse a part of his speech to see what we can make of it. If I misrepresent him I hope he will correct me, because he is really difficult to comprehend, but as I understand him, he says:—As a class, owners of cattle are not sufferers by the rinderpest; individuals may suffer but the class will not, because the class will be idemnified by the higher prices that will be obtained owing to the losses and the consequent diminution of supply—I hope that is a slight mistake —and as the producers, taken as a class, sustain no loss, and the whole loss must fall upon consumers, therefore the consumers, who bear the whole loss, ought not to be called upon to pay any more quâ consumers, but the loss ought to be met by the producing class. Let us look at this argument for a moment. In the first place, it has in it that error which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was too acute not to feel, in spite of his general agreement with it. It is founded on the fallacious assumption that this is a mere question of indemnity. But it is no question of indemnifying people for losses. It is a question of paying men with a view to getting rid of the cattle plague. Where does the hon. Gentleman find, in any work of political economy, that in a case like the present, where great losses are incurred by a class which losses diminish the supply of a certain article, that necessarily the class will be indemnified by increased prices? Where is the unit on which he bases the calculation— where is the common measure? Is it true that the English cattle producer will gain on account of these raised prices? Has he not powerful competitors, and will not advanced prices increase an importation of 10,000 head of cattle to 20,000? That which is to be the indemnification of the English cattle dealer will have to be divided with all Europe, and some of the money will go to transatlantic producers. It seems to me that no supposition can be more unfounded than this, that the losses of individuals will thus, of necessity, be made up. At least, you cannot call upon a class, in consideration of profits they have not yet made, to indemnify individuals, while the rest of the community stand by with their hands folded and do nothing. Suppose I am wrong, and grant that the hon. Gentleman's position is sound and that the producer loses nothing and the whole loss falls on the consumer, is that a reason why the consumer should not make every exertion in his power to prevent that loss? The object is to avert future loss, and future loss, not on behalf of a class, but on behalf of a whole community. As the loss must fall on the whole community, is it reasonable that the community should stand by and say—we will not stir a finger to prevent it? Is it not a more reasonable inference that, as the loss is to fall on the consumers, they ought to come forward in a body to bear it? Therefore, if I grant this principle it seems to me that it proves exactly the contrary of what was deduced from it. As to the simple question before us, I cannot understand the argument that those districts which suffer shall pay, and that those that escape shall contribute nothing. The question before the House is this—shall there be one simple rate, or shall it be divided into two-thirds from one source and one-third from another. The Chancellor of the Exchequer wishes to put it on cattle, and I could understand the right hon. Gentleman if he took the proposition of the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. J. B. Smith). But the proposition is that the districts already visited, or which hereafter may be visited, by the cattle plague, shall be taxed. The districts which may be visited by the cattle plague are to be trebly taxed—first, by the devastation of the scourge; secondly, by the county rate, which more fortunate districts will not pay; and thirdly, by the contribution of a percentage per head on those cattle which the plague has spared. It seems to me that these propositions ought to conciliate nobody, that this is the last quarter from which assistance should be sought in such an emergency, and that the best plan is to take the broadest view. In taxation you cannot go into refinements and minute subdivision of burdens, and similar considerations. We are seeking to avert a great national calamity, which must fall heavily on all. Let us all contribute to this special rate, as we pay our other rates. If you claim exemption, you might as well say that because a gentleman and his family are free from madness, he ought not to be taxed to pay for a lunatic asylum. Besides, this is a new tax in a Bill that is to be in force for only six weeks. You are going to impose a new tax for which you have no machinery—for which you have no statistics. You do not know the number of animals—it would be a fluctuating quantity day by day; you do not know whether the rinderpest will not be beforehand with you, and take away the very basis upon which the cattle tax would be levied. Well, then, on the other hand, we have our regularly assessed tax, and you are only asked to add to what you are in the habit of paying. It is only temporary, a matter of six weeks, and is it not better to do it by the machinery we have than resort to one of the most invidious and unfair things in the world? I entirely go with the argument of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton), that in this case we ought not to go into abstract considerations of justice. It is absolutely necessary that the money which we expend should be most carefully expended—more carefully than any other, because it may become a double prodigality. If people are careless and remiss, they will first of all slaughter cattle which ought not to be slaughtered, and then pay for them. Therefore, you require a check upon them, and what check so good as that those who order the slaughter should feel that they themselves will have to pay for it?

MR. J. STUART MILL

As the arguments of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Lowe) derive great weight from his knowledge, his character, and his talents, it seems desirable that anything which can be said in reply should be said as soon as possible, and while the impression of his arguments is still fresh. I think what is necessary may be said in a very few sentences. My right hon. Friend thinks it a complete answer to the arguments which I submitted to the notice of the House, to say that the object of the tax is not compensation, but to give a motive to the farmer to declare the disease. Now, Sir, I really think that the motive held out to the farmer to make this disclosure does not depend on the quarter from whence the compensation comes, but on the compensation itself. I should like to know whether, if the farmer receives £20 or any other sum for his beast, it makes any difference in the motive held out to him whether it is paid from a cattle tax, or from the county rate, or out of the Consolidated Fund. In the next place, my right hon. Friend stated that the scarcity of a commodity does not always raise the price in full proportion to the deficiency in the quantity. Well, Sir, that is very true, but it is also an extremely common thing that the effect should be to raise the price a great deal beyond the proportion of the loss, and the case in which this is peculiarly known to happen is when the article in deficiency is one of food. Take, for instance, the commodity which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) has brought forward into the prominence which belongs to it, the article of milk. In the case of milk, an article which is of first necessity to even the poorest people in the country, it is hardly conceivable that a scarcity should take place without raising the price immeasurably beyond the proportion of the loss. In the next place, my right hon. Friend thought it an extremely unreasonable thing in me to neglect and leave out of sight that portion of the supply of cattle which comes by importation. He said I did not mention it on a former occasion. Sir, I did mention it, and referred to it in a most special manner. And the answer which I made then I make now, in the words which my right hon. Friend himself quoted—de minimis non curat lex, the quantity imported being so small in proportion to the whole supply. There is one more point in my right hon. Friend's speech which I would wish to notice. He asked, "Is it not absurd that because a man or any of his family is not mad, he should object to being taxed for a lunatic asylum?" I ask, is there any economical law by which the patients of a lunatic asylum are compensated for the expense of their maintenance in that asylum? If there is, the cases are parallel; if not, not.

SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTE

said, he thought it his duty to state that, in his opinion, the Government proposition was, on the whole, the best. If there was time he would have guarded himself against ac- quiescing in the view taken by the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Stuart Mill) which he considered neither sound in principle nor fair. He agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this Bill must be more or less in the nature of a compromise, and though it was quite fair to press the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe), that this was a national calamity which ought to be met out of the national funds, nevertheless he could not disguise from himself that this payment of compensation was something in the nature of a compulsory insurance, and it was right therefore, so far as that was the case, that it should be raised by a rate-in-aid. In stating his view of it, as an insurance, he wished to guard himself from being supposed to acquiesce in the proposal that the money so raised by rate should be applied to retrospective compensation. As to that he would suggest that it should be thrown on the Consolidated Fund. With respect to prospective compensation, the burden on the whole should be a national one, and the only objection was the difficulty of watching it. It was, therefore, right in order to meet this objection to throw the burden on the local taxation, and to let the machinery be managed by the local authorities. The mode, therefore, in which the Government had met the difficulty by a cattle rate was, in his opinion, the best.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that the retrospective clause was left out of the Bill.

MR. ACLAND

said, he felt so strongly the force of what had been said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the burdens which ought to be borne by the immediate neighbours of owners of cattle in the infected districts, that if it were not complicating the question he should be disposed to advocate a special charge upon the highway board districts or Poor Law union districts immediately adjoining the localities where infection prevailed. The great objection to the plan, he feared, was that it would prove impracticable.

SIR GEORGE GREY

Sir, the questions principally raised in the course of the debate have been—first, whether compensation should come from national or local funds, and next, assuming that the compensation is to come out of local funds, whether it should be provided wholly by a county rate, or partly by a county rate and partly by a cattle plague rate. I must do the agricultural interest the justice to say that, as a body, it has repudiated any claim on the national funds. The Royal Agricultural Society distinctly did so, and suggested that a Bill should be prepared giving authority to levy funds for the purposes of compensation by a county rate. The deputation from St. James' Hall were silent as to the funds out of which compensation ought to come, but individual members of the deputation expressed themselves in favour of funds locally collected and locally administered, and not one of them asked for any grant from the national funds. I am glad to find that the hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir William Heathcote), whose opinion on this subject is entitled to much weight, entertains the opinion that theoretically the proposal that part of the burden should be borne by a rate on cattle is a just one. No doubt, however, when we come to the machinery for carrying out such an arrangement a good deal of difficulty presents itself. With the limited time at our disposal it would be impossible to ascertain the feeling of the country generally upon the point. Under all the circumstances, and after what they found to be the feeling of the House, the Government are disposed to withdraw the proposal as to the cattle plague rate, leaving the whole expense to be provided out of the county rate.

On Question, That the words "as to two-third parts thereof" stand part of the clause,

Resolved in the Negative:—Words struck out.

MR. CARNEGIE moved a further Amendment in Clause—namely, that for the words "two-thirds" the words "three-fourths" should be substituted, with the view of adding "and the remaining one-fourth shall be defrayed from money provided by Parliament for that purpose."

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, he could not accept the Amendment, because if any portion of the money were to be provided by Parliament it must clearly come out of the Consolidated Fund, and upon that question the House had just expressed its opinion very clearly.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, he agreed with the right hon. Baronet (Sir George Grey) that the question had been virtually decided. The fund, however, was erroneously called a compensation fund, since it was provided solely to enable the State to get possession of cattle which for the public benefit it believed ought to be destroyed. In point of principle, however, the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lowe) and his right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) were perfectly right. When a great public calamity was met in the way in which this was proposed to be met, and when cattle belonging to individuals were taken for the purposes of the State, according to strict principle the State and not particular classes ought to pay the money requisite for the acquisition of the cattle.

SIR JOHN TROLLOPE

said, he would, read a passage from a letter written by one of the deputation who had waited upon the Home Secretary. It was to the following effect:— It was thought by many of us who lost our cattle, that aid would have been granted from the Consolidated Fund for all cattle destroyed in the public interest, or that loans would have been granted to sufferers. But the principle of compensation from local rates is something like compensating the left from the right hand pocket. We poor sufferers have first to find the money and then to distribute it among ourselves. That letter expressed the opinion of one of the most intelligent agriculturists in the kingdom.

MR. CARNEGIE

said, he felt very strongly upon the point; but, under the circumstances, he would not put hon. Members to the trouble of dividing.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Amendment to omit the words "and as to remaining one-third part thereof out of the cattle rate hereinafter provided,"

MR. BARING

objected to the Amendment. To meet the views of the hon. Member for Nottinghamshire, he moved that at the end of the clause the following words be inserted:— Every local authority shall have power, notwithstanding any limit in any Act of Parliament, to levy a local rate of the amount required for the purposes of this Act; but any rate or increase of rate levied under this section shall in all precepts for the levy thereof be described as a separate rate, or a separate item rate; and when collected from the individual ratepayers it shall be collected as a separate rate, or specified as a separate item of rate.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment (Mr. Baring) agreed to.

Words added to the clause.

MR. WALDEGRAVE-LESLIE

said, that in nearly all the counties in which the cattle plague had broken out subscriptions had been raised for the relief of the persons who had lost their cattle. He considered that now, when a general rate was about to be struck, the sums previously subscribed by individuals ought to be taken into consideration. He therefore moved that the following words be added to the 31st clause: — In the case of counties which, previous to the passing of this Act, had entered into a voluntary assessment on account of the Cattle Plague, it shall be in the discretion of the local authority to consider such assessments as have been paid previous to the passing of the Act as part and portion of the cattle rate under this Act, and to make regulations accordingly.

MR. BARING

said, he hoped the hon. Member would withdraw the Amendment, and allow him to propose a clause in which the particular question would be met. As the proposal stood it would compensate owners not only for cattle destroyed, but for cattle that had died. In reply to the question of an hon. Member as to the definition of local authorities for the purposes of the Act, municipal boroughs, having a separate quarter sessions, would be constituted a separate local authority, while all other boroughs would form part of the county in which they were situate.

MR. WALDEGRAVE-LESLIE

said, that in order to alleviate the difficulty suggested by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baring), he would strike out the word "accordingly," and add to his Amendment the words "consistent with the purposes of this Act."

SIR JOHN TROLLOPE

said, that no Member of the Government had stated how the rate was to be collected. If it wa3 to be collected as a separate rate by overseers of the poor, it would throw great additional labour on unpaid officials.

MR. BARING

said, he thought he could suggest an addition to the 33rd clause which would meet the difficulty mooted.

MR. BARROW

said, he was afraid these additions would complicate the Act. He would suggest that such a matter as that under consideration be left to the discretion of the local anthorities. He was himself a contributor in two different districts, and desired no reduction under the provisions of the Act. He thought it would be better that the rate should be a special county rate rather than a local rate. It would then fall in the ordinary course of collection.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, the rate would be collected in the ordinary way.

MR. WALDEGRAVE-LESLIE

said, as the Committee appeared to be against it, he would withdraw his Amendment, but hoped the Government would recognize the voluntary assessments which had been made, and insert such provisions in the Bill as would infer commendation of the high spirit which had dictated these voluntary assessments.

SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHER

said, he thought some consideration should be had for the inhabitants of those counties where they had endeavoured to assess themselves. They ought to encourage the spirit of self-reliance among the farmers. If some such Amendment as was proposed were not passed, the Act would offer a premium to those who had done nothing to do the same under similar circumstances at some future time.

SIR ANDREW AGNEW

said, he concurred with the last speaker's observations. The provision came quite within the spirit of the Act.

MAJOR WALKER

said, that at the present time the process of destroying animals and paying compensation for them was being carried out most successfully by voluntary arrangement, in several counties. If, however, a doubt were created in the minds of those so associated as to whether the money they had subscribed would be credited to them in respect of the compulsory assessment which it was proposed to make, an end would be immediately put to the most effectual machinery at present in work for the purpose of stamping out the disease. These funds were raised in anticipation of the passing of this Bill, and the gentlemen who advanced them ought to be repaid. It was obvious that, as some weeks would elapse before the Royal Assent could be given to the Bill, the event he had described as possible would be most disastrous in its results if it were permitted to occur.

MR. BARING

said, he quite agreed with the hon. and gallant Member. If the hon. Member behind him (Mr. Waldegrave-Leslie would withdraw his Amendment, he would propose the one he had already referred to. He believed it would be found to meet the case more effectually.

MR. WALDEGRAVE-LESLIE

said, he would withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause amended, as follows, and agreed to.

[cl. 18.]

"All Expenses incurred by a Local Authority in pursuance of this Act, including any Compensation payable by it in respect of Animals slaughtered in pursuance of this Act, shall be defrayed out of the Local Rate as defined by this Act, or out of a separate Rate to be levied in all respects in the same Manner as the Local Rate, and included under the Term 'Local Rate.' Any Person who is not the Owner of the Premises in respect of which he is rated, under this Section, to the Local Rate may deduct from the growing Rent due to the Owner of such Premises One Half of the Rate payable by him for the Purposes of this Act, and every Owner shall allow such Deduction accordingly. 'Owner' for the Purposes of this Section shall mean the Person for the Time being entitled to receive the Rackrent of the Premises in respect of which the Rate is made on his own Account, or who would be entitled to receive the same if such Premises were let at a Rackrent, including under the Term' Rackrent' any Rent which is not less than Two Thirds of the net annual Value of the Premises out of which the Rent issues. Every Local Authority shall have Power, notwithstanding any Limit in any Act of Parliament, to levy a Local Rate to the Amount required for the Purposes of this Act, but every Rate or Increase of Rate levied under this Section shall in all Precepts for the Levy thereof be described as a separate Rate or separate Item of Rate, and when collected from the individual Ratepayers it shall be collected as a separate Rate or specified as a separate Item of Rate."

Clause 32 (Regulations as to Cattle Rate) struck out.

Clause 33 (Power to remit Rate in certain cases).

SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMID moved to leave out the words "in respect of which he is not entitled to receive any compensation under this Act."

SIR GEORGE GREY

assented.

Words struck out.

MR. BARING moved to add the words— When within the District of any Local Authority any Sum has been raised by a voluntary Rate for the Purpose of paying for cattle slaughtered with a view of preventing the spread of the Cattle Plague, the Local Authority may, with the Consent of the Managers of such Voluntary Rate, after satisfying itself that the Rate or such Portion of the Rate as has been expended has been duly expended for the purpose aforesaid, and having received from such Managers the Balance of such Rate, if any, apply it to the purposes of this Act, and in such case the sums proved to the Satisfaction of such Local Authority to have been paid by any Person to such voluntary Rate, and to have been duly accounted for, shall be deducted from any Rate payable by such Person under the Provisions of this Act.

SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMID

said, that where there was no balance the Amendment would have no effect.

MR. HOWES

said, there were associations to compensate farmers for cattle which died as well as those which were slaughtered, and he thought both ought to be included in the clause.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, there would be an opportunity upon the Report to see whether the clause, as amended, carried out the wishes of the House.

COLONEL WILSON PATTEN

said, he feared that if voluntary subscriptions as well as voluntary rates were not recognized it would occasion much disappointment. In his county there was an association in which 7,000 cattle were entered. The disease broke out, and in one herd of seventy-three head of cattle, fifty-three died in three days. The farmers thereupon bought the whole herd and had them slaughtered on the spot. That was a very spirited thing on the part of the farmers, and was done for the public benefit. It was carrying out the object of the Bill, and he regretted that, as the clause now stood, those farmers would not participate in the benefit of the measure.

MR. BARING

said, that where the case was one of rate the clause would apply, but not where the farmers had raised the money among themselves. In cases where counties had imposed a voluntary rate for the purpose of slaughtering cattle the parties would come in for the benefit of the Bill, but not in the case mentioned by his hon. and gallant Friend, where the farmers had contributed for the purpose of making up a loss. The clause would meet a certain number of cases, but not all.

MR. FELLOWES

said, he understood that the clause would only apply to cases of slaughter, and not to those where the animals had died.

MR. BARING

said, that was so.

Amendment agreed to.

Words added.

Clause, as amended, agreed to. [cl. 19.]

Clause 34 (Mode of levying and re-covering assessments in Scotland).

THE LORD ADVOCATE moved to insert the words "and collected" after the word "assessed" in line 30.

Amendment agreed to. [cl. 21.]

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 35 (Mortgage of Rates).

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he rose for the purpose of fulfilling an engagement which he had made with his hon. Friends the Members for Cheshire. He was, however, compelled to fulfil the engagement in a somewhat different manner to that in which it appeared on the Votes. He had given notice of his intention of moving, on the consideration of Clause 37, the following addition:— But in any case where the local rate levied on the average of the said seven years for meeting the charges of this Act shall exceed sixpence in the pound, the Lords of the Treasury may, upon application from the Local Authority, extend the term to any term not exceeding fourteen years. The notice was given somewhat hurriedly, and the addition could be better made in the present clause, and he should therefore move that that course be taken In consequence, too, of the decision of the House upon the cattle rate, he should alter the "sixpence in the pound" to "ninepence in the pound," and he should further add the words— And the local authorities may mortgage or assign over the said rate for any term not exceeding fourteen years accordingly. There were one or two other alterations, but they were merely of a verbal character.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, he wished to know whether, by the proposed Amendments, the local authorities would be authorized to borrow the money for seven years, and then, if they desired it, to apply to the Lords of the Treasury for the further extension of time.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that as soon as the rate had exceeded the average of 6d. for the seven years the local authorities would be empowered to borrow money for that period, but when it exceeded 9d. they might borrow the money for the longer time.

Clause amended, and agreed to. [cl, 22.]

Clauses 36 to 39 agreed to.

Clause 40 (Reports by Local Authority to Privy Council).

MR. BARING

proposed to substitute for the clause as it stood the following;— Every Local Authority shall report to the Privy Council the state of the Cattle Plague in their district, and give such other information with respect to the Cattle Plague, in such form and at such time as the Privy Council may require.

MR. HENLEY

said, he could not object to the Amendment if the information which was required was to be exclusively confined to the action of the cattle plague, and was not to be the revival of an old battle. But the words were so general that, as far as he could understand them, it was difficult to see that they might not be employed for the purpose of obtaining agricultural statistics. Such a point ought not to be gained by a sidewind. If that were the object, it should be avowed, and then the pros and cons could be argued fairly. They wanted to know the simple facts as to how many cattle had died, and how many cattle had been killed owing to the disease. The matter was rather a curious one, because as soon as the disease appeared the Board of Trade, so to speak, "improved the occasion," and endeavoured to obtain the statistics.

MR. BARING

said, the words of the clause were so limited as to apply only to the obtaining of information "with respect to the Cattle Plague." In that way the objection of the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire was obviated. He had no wish to obtain other information than that he had specified.

MR. LIDDELL

said, he thought it very important that they should have these agricultural statistics. They would form the basis of a system of insurance for stock. They insured their ships, their houses, and other property, but not their live stock. The reason for that, he believed, was because they had not the means of ascertaining the risk to live stock, owing to the want of proper statistics. He trusted that in this matter they would profit by their experience of the present calamity, and be led to adopt the practice of insuring cattle.

MR. DENT

said, it was a great misfortune to the agricultural community that they had now such few reliable data on the subject. If agricultural statistics had been at hand the House would have been better able to deal with the question of the plague.

Motion agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to. [cl. 25.]

Clause 41 (Purchase of Land for Burial of Diseased Animals).

SIR JOHN TROLLOPE

said, that the general practice had been to bury the cattle where they died, and it was hardly necessary to establish cemetries for them. The conveyance of the carcases along the high road to such places might be the means of spreading the infection.

MR. WHALLEY

said, he thought it could not be necessary always to purchase the land where the carcases were to be interred. It would be sufficient if they hired it for a time, say on a lease for seven years.

MR. HUNT

said, that those who visited, as he had done, the yards of the London dairymen would find that it was impossible to bury the animals where they died. What, then, was to be done with the carcases? Some people objected to their being carted through the streets. Unless some compulsory power was given for acquiring burying places, by purchase or otherwise, he did not see where the animals were to be buried. They could not be thrown into the river. In accordance with the suggestion just made, he moved to insert the words "or hire."

MR. BARING

said, he had no objection to insert the words "or hire" after "purchase." There were cases in which it was absolutely essential to acquire the use of land for this purpose.

The words "or hire"inserted.

Clause, as amended, agreed to. [cl. 26.]

Clause 42 amended, and agreed to.

Clause 43 (Cleaning trucks, &c.)

MR. BARING

said, that if the conveyance of cattle by railway was to be prohibited that clause might be expunged.

MR. OWEN STANLEY

said, he thought, having regard to the carriage of diseased meat, that the clause should be retained. He proposed an addition to the clause providing that a penalty should be imposed upon railway companies and others neglecting to cleanse conveyances used for the removal of carcases.

MR. BARING

said, that the Bill of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt), which would shortly be considered, contained a provision that would effect what was required by the hon. Gentleman.

SIR JAMES FERGUSSON

said, he thought the railway companies had endeavoured to meet the wishes of the House in every possible way. The various companies had expressed their readiness at once to discontinue their traffic in live stock, and at some considerable inconvenience to take such steps as would enable them to convey dead meat to all parts of the country. Although not personally connected with railway companies, he was authorized to state that they were prepared to take efficient means for disinfecting their cattle trucks to the satisfaction of persons to be appointed by Government for the purpose of inspecting them. This it was their intention to do as soon as possible if left to themselves; and, perhaps, it would be sufficient now to enact that no truck which had been used for the conveyance of live cattle should again be used until it had been thoroughly cleansed and disinfected to the satisfaction of inspectors to be appointed by Government. It would savour of oppression to enact that they should not be used till after a given time.

MR. HUNT

said, he thought that the trucks should he registered by number.

SIR JAMES FERGUSSON

said, he had no objection to the registration of the trucks. It was necessary to prevent the trucks from being used until they had been thoroughly cleansed and disinfected, as in all probability they would be used for the conveyance of dead meat. He understood that the Great Western Railway Company were now using cattle trucks for that purpose, the meat being hung up on bars, so as to insure a free circulation of air.

COLONEL DOUGLAS PENNANT

said, he hoped that the railway companies would be compelled to cleanse the trucks immediately the cattle were removed from them. During the last winter he found it to be the practice on the London and North Western line to send empty cattle trucks in a filthy condition from all parts of England to Holyhead to bring away other cattle.

MR. OWEN STANLEY

said, he had received that morning from the inspectors at Holyhead a list of fifty trucks which had been sent to different parts of England in a filthy condition, the floors being covered with cattle manure. Any person conversant with the cattle plague must know that there was the greatest danger of the disease being conveyed by the servants of the company in going from such trucks to a farm. Therefore, although he believed all railway directors to be "honourable men," and to be desirous of doing their duty, he hoped that the inspection of trucks would be placed in other hands.

MR. LIDDELL

said, he thought Government should undertake to see that the trucks were kept in a proper condition, as the inspectors appointed by local authorities might be kept at bay by powerful railway companies.

COLONEL SYKES

said, it was most essential that some clause of the kind proposed should be inserted in the Bill, as it was well known that the disease had been conveyed into Inverness shire by means of the straw litter in a railway truck.

MR. CRAUFURD

said, that while forbidding absolutely the carriage of cattle by railway, the Committee had entirely omitted to deal with carriage by canal.

Clause struck out.

Clause 44 (Penalty for Disobedience of Act or Order).

MR. FELLOWES

said, he thought the penalty should be raised from £5 to £10 in order to prevent farmers from moving their cattle in order to sell them at an advantage, and thus clearing more than the amount of the penalty.

MR. STONE moved the addition of the following words:— If any inspector, cattle overseer, or other officer appointed under the provisions of this Act, shall neglect any duties, or exceed, or wrongfully use any powers with which he is intrusted in pursuance of this Act, he shall for each offence incur a penalty not exceeding £20.

SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHER

said, he thought that some hold should be kept over inspectors, as many instances of improper conduct on their part had come to his knowledge. In one case an inspector had bought diseased cattle which he had himself condemned from a farmer, and bad sent them up to the Metropolitan Market.

MR. WALDEGRAVE-LESLIE

said, he hoped the Under Secretary would agree to this Amendment. Farmers would thus be protected from excess of zeal on the part of inspectors.

MR. CARNEGIE

said, that the amount of the fine was left permissive; and where a simple error of judgment had been committed probably no penalty whatever would be inflicted. But frequently there had been a gross neglect of duty. He had heard of a case in which a certificate for the removal of cattle had been given by an inspector for a glass of whiskey. He thought it well that the Bill should contain the power given by the Amendment.

MR. HUNT

said, an inspector if he exceeded his duty would be liable to an action.

Amendment withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 4.5 to 47 agreed to.

Clause 48 (Recovery of Penalties).

MR. HUNT

said, that the Bill made no provision as to the application of penalties. He thought it very desirable that, as to a portion, they should be paid over to the fund out of which compensation was to come. Under the general law they would be paid into the Treasury. The informer, he thought, should receive half the penalty, and the other half should go to the fund applicable to compensation.

MR. BARING

said, the fines would go to the county rate under the Act of 1848.

MR. HUNT

said, he was satisfied with that assurance.

MR. NEATE

said, he wished to ask what became of the penalties under the Orders in Council.

MR. BARING

said, he would answer that question to-morrow. He had to propose the addition of a Proviso to the clause— Any Railway Company or other body corporate may appear before any justice, sheriff, or sheriff substitute by any member of their board of management, or by any officer authorized in writing under the hand of any director or manager of the Company.

MR. SHERRIFF

said, that there were now, in various parts of England, tramways which might convey cattle, unless expressly enjoined not to do so. He therefore proposed to add the word tramway after railway.

MR. AYRTON

said, he doubted very much whether the difference between a railway and a tramway could be stated. He thought the introduction of the words would create a difficulty.

Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion agreed to; Proviso added.

Clause, as amended, agreed to. [cl. 30.]

Clause 49 (Appeal).

MR. WHALLEY

said, he wished to urge that the recognizances of the parties themselves before the justices should be sufficient, and that they should not be called upon also to provide two sureties. He moved that the words "two sufficient sureties" should be omitted.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to. [cl. 31.]

Clause 50 (Confirmation of Orders).

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU

said, he was in favour of the adoption of the principle of retrospective compensation. All he desired was that those persons whose animals had been slaughtered by an arbitrary law should not be deprived of their claim for compensation. They had postponed the clause for retrospective compensation, and until they had made sure that such a clause would be adopted they should not pass an indemnity clause. This was an indemnity clause, and he understood that the Lord Chancellor in another place had stated that the Privy Council had no legal right to issue orders for the slaughter of cattle. If that were so the law would grant compensation to the sufferers. Under these circumstances, he thought that the House ought not lightly to pass an indemnity clause like the present. He hoped that the Government would not object to the introduction of the following words, namely:— That nothing herein contained shall prevent those persons whose cattle have been slaughtered by Orders of the Privy Council availing themselves of any remedy they might have under the existing law.

MR. BARING

said, that the powers given to the Lords of the Council under the Act 11 & 12 Vict, were couched in very vague terms, and it was therefore to prevent the litigation to which the local authorities, acting under the Orders of Council, might be subjected that the present clause was required. With respect to compensation for slaughtered cattle, the opinion of persons most competent to form a judgment on the subject was contained in the 18th clause of the Bill.

MR. H. A. BRUCE

said, he thought that if any of those persons whose cattle had been slaughtered had any doubt as to the right of the authorities to order the slaughter of cattle, they would have tried the question legally before this time. The introduction of the words would nullify the clause.

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU

said, that all he desired was that whatever right those persons now might have by law should not be taken away from them.

MR. BARING

said, he had great objection to the insertion of the proposed words, as they would hold out an inducement for persons immediately to commence actions, notwithstanding the opinion of persons eminent in the legal profession that they had no such legal claim as that suggested.

SIR JAMES FERGUSSON

said, he did not believe that the claims of persons, whose cattle had been slaughtered, would be vitiated by the non-insertion of the proposed words. He thought the claims of such persons should be admitted, and suggested the postponement of the clause.

MR. HUNT

said, he hoped that the words would not be inserted. He thought that the Government was justified in going to the very edge of the law, if not in extending the law under the emergency. He was anxious, therefore, to confirm the Orders, and he thought it most desirable to do so, for the sake of the magistrates who had acted under them.

MR. GOODSON

said, that on the bringing up of the Report some clause should be introduced to protect the local authorities from any malicious or vexatious proceedings.

MR. NEATE

said, that those who suffered under the operation of the Orders in Council had the same right to receive compensation as those to whom Parliament was about to give it prospectively.

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU

said, he had no wish to put the Committee to the trouble of dividing on the Question and would withdraw his Amendment, if the Under Secretary for the Home Department would promise, on the part of the Government, that they would endeavour to pass such a compensation clause as they themselves had suggested. As he before said, he did not wish to prevent the confirmation of the Orders, but he wished to establish the principle of retrospective compensation.

MR. HENLEY

said, the Committee were in some difficulty in respect to this question. The clause which entitled the parties to compensation for the destruction of their cattle under the orders of the inspector, or other authority authorized by the Privy Council, and which had a retrospective effect, had been withdrawn, on the suggestion, he (Mr. Henley) believed, of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe), on the ground that the fund out of which they were to be paid was not the proper fund, as stated in the clause. So far as he understood no definite promise had, however, been given to introduce another clause on the subject. He thought it the duty of the House to see that those parties whose cattle had been slaughtered for the public good by order of the inspectors should not be in a worse position than those whose cattle were to be slaughtered in future under the authority of this Bill. As no Cabinet Minister was present, it was extremely difficult for the Under Secretary of State (Mr. Baring) to give the necessary pledge that the case of these persons, who so willingly sacrificed their own interests in this matter, should be considered. The absence of any Member of the Cabinet was a strong reason for postponing the clause.

MR. BARING

said, the reason why the Secretary for the Home Department was not present was that he was not well. He hoped the Committee would, under the circumstances, excuse any deficiency on his part, and agree to the postponement of the clause for a short time, when his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would, in all probability, be in his place.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, every one must be sensible of the efficiency with which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baring) invariably discharged his duties in the House. He (Lord John Manners) thought that these unfortunate persons had a strong moral claim on the Government, and he hoped that when the clause was re-introduced their case would be adequately considered.

Clause postponed.

Clause 51 (Expenses incurred prior to passing of Act), agreed to.

Clause 3 (Definition of Terms).

MR. BARING

said, that as the clause then stood every municipal borough was an authority in itself; but he now proposed to amend it by the insertion of words which would make the clause only constitute as a separate authority any borough "which is not assessed to the county rate of any county by the justices of such county."

Amendment agreed to.

MR. BARING

said, he had another Amendment to propose, and in doing so he must apologize to the hon. Members for the City, The Bill had been changed in its character during its progress through Committee, and the Amendment which he was about to propose, as well as a corresponding Amendment in the schedule, had become necessary in consequence of the change which had been made in the Bill itself, which was now one simply for slaughtering and rating purposes. He assured his hon. Friends that nothing could be further from the intention of his right hon. Friend (Sir George Grey) than to do anything derogatory to the dignity and privileges of the City of London; but it had been represented to the Home Secretary by the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works that nothing could be more unfair to the whole metropolis than that the City, which was so large and wealthy a portion of it, should be entirely excepted from the operation of the clauses relating to the metropolis. At the same time, the Chairman assured the Government that nothing should be done by the Metropolitan Board, in which body the City of London was represented, to interfere with that dignity and those privileges. Indeed, it was manifest that the provisions of the Bill could be carried out only with the co-operation of the City police, The Amendment of which he had given notice would be in the last paragraph of the clause, which paragraph was in these words— The Metropolis shall include all Parishes and Places in which the Metropolitan Board of Works have Power to levy a Main Drainage Rate, with the exception of the City of London and the liberties thereof. He proposed to omit all the words after the word "rate" with the object of in-eluding the City of London. A similar course had been taken in the ease of the Fire Brigade Act and other cases, and by adopting the Amendment an inequality of rating within the metropolis would be avoided. He could only say he wished it had been in the power of the Secretary of State to give that notice of the Amendment which was due to the City of London and those who represented it; but it had been impossible to do so. It was to be remembered that in this Bill, without notice to the public, provisions had been introduced which might cause great inconvenience, and he had just proposed an Amendment in another portion of the clause which would affect every borough in the country.

Amendment proposed.

MR. CRAWFORD

said, that when his hon. Friend asked him to agree to the Amendment he asked too much of him; because, representing in the House the privileges of the City of London, he must feel that such a proposition ought not to have been brought forward without notice. Undoubtedly, the change which the omission of those words would introduce in the government of the metropolis was a most important one. Up to that moment the City of London had been charged with carrying out the Orders of Council in reference to the cattle plague. It had its own officers and its own machinery for that purpose. Why, then, should its functions in the matter be suddenly taken away? He saw in the Amendment the thin edge of the wedge, which two or three years ago the Secretary of State had attempted to drive home. He had had no communication with the City, and did not feel competent to argue this question in defence of their rights without notice. Therefore, all he could do was to enter his protest and that of the City against the Amendment.

SIR FITZROY KELLY

said, he concurred in what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London. It was due to the corporation of London that some notice should have been given to them of the proposed change in the framing of this clause, so as to have enabled them at least to have known what would be its effect on the privileges of the City and usages, which had existed from time immemorial. From a long professional experience he could state that the effect of the clause, if amended as proposed, would be to indirectly repeal a number of Acts of Parliament applicable to the City of London, and that it would interfere with the functions of its officers to an extent of which no one in the House could form an adequate idea. He urged on the Government the expediency and justice of giving the corporation an opportunity, before the Bill was passed into a law, of considering what might be done in order that some qualification or exception might be introduced into this total annihilation in law of the privileges of the City of London.

MR. AYRTON

said, he should have thought, after the handsome appeal of his hon. Friend the Under Secretary, that this Amendment would be adopted without observation. He must say he was surprised that his hon. and learned Friend opposite should get up, and, investing himself with all the mystic knowledge which he had acquired in the twenty-five years during which he had been standing counsel to the City of London, should say that such legal mysteries were involved in this measure that the House did not know what it was doing. He too, had studied the constitution of the City of London a good deal, in reference to the legislation of that House, and had thus acquired some knowledge of the imaginary difficulties floating in the mind of his hon. and learned Friend. Yet he ventured to say that there was not the smallest risk or danger of injuring anybody by accepting the clause now proposed. The principle of interference was established long since, with reference to the drainage and necessary improvements in the City. At the present moment the Metropolitan Board of Works was actually demolishing houses in the vicinity of the Mansion House, and they rightly had authority in the City, because the City, like the other metropolitan districts, was represented at the Board of Works. There was no reason why the City should claim exemption as a separate jurisdiction more than Marylebone or any other metropolitan parish. There would be an extraordinary speciality if the City were to be exempted from the operation of the clause. The metropolis at large was going to be taxed in consequence of what had been done in the Metropolitan Cattle Market, and consequently, if anything had been done wrong, the fault lay with the City of London. If any conclusion was to be drawn from that, it would be that the City should alone be taxed. He deprecated the position which his hon. and learned Friend had taken in endeavouring to frighten the House out of its propriety by raking up imaginary notions as to the supposed privileges of the corporation.

MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCE

said, he rose to meet the arguments which had been brought forward to show that the City of London should be treated in a manner different to that observed with respect to the other local authorities specially described in the Bill. The object of the Bill was to provide means for the attempted suppression of that great scourge the cattle plague, and he apprehended that it was not in any way a measure to extend or to limit jurisdictions. He thought, therefore, that this was not the time to discuss whether the City of London ought to be included in the metropolis, or whether it ought to have its jurisdiction extended so as to include the whole metropolis. The question before the House was as to the best means of suppressing the cattle plague. The Bill reserved the rights of the Liberty of St. Alban's, the Liberty of the Isle of Ely, and the Stoke of Peterborough. Why, therefore, should not the rights of the City be reserved? The City of London had been carrying out the various Orders in Council most efficiently and satisfactorily. When this Bill was introduced, the various local authorities were described in it, and certainly the City could never have thought that almost at the last moment a Member of the Government would rise in his place and state that he thought it for the advantage of the metropolis that the Bill should be so altered as to deprive the City of London of the position which it had held for ages, and place it under the management of the Metropolitan Board of Works. What was still more marvellous was the proposal that the Board of Works should be assisted by means of the City police, who were paid by, and were under the control of, the City authorities. He thought that the City of London ought to be treated with fairness. It had at all times done its duty, but if the House should think its jurisdiction ought to be limited, that was a matter which ought to be introduced in a separate Bill, and not under the guise of a Bill for the suppression of the cattle plague. The Under Secretary of State had said that he had made a great change in the Bill with respect to municipal boroughs, in order that they might not be taxed twice over; but he had proposed to make a change in regard to the City of London in order that he might obtain from it a larger amount. It was no argument whatever to say that because the City was called upon to pay a larger amount it should therefore be submerged and put under the management of the Metropolitan Board of Works. He was sure that the City of London would feel that they had been taken by surprise, for they had received no notice from the Government of such a change in the Bill. It was true that the City sent Members to the Board of Works, but the City had never been adequately represented there, according to its population and its rating. Indeed, it was never intended to place the City under the Board of Works like Marylebone and the other metropolitan boroughs. He thought that the City ought to have an opportunity of making known their opinion in this matter.

MR. LOCKE

said, he considered his hon. Friend who spoke last had, although he was an Alderman of the City, spoken under a misapprehension as to the exact position of the City. His hon. Friend had alluded to two things —rating and the police. With regard to the rating of the City of London, that was done at present by the Metropolitan Board of Works for Metropolitan and City improvements. They levied the Main Drainage rate in the City, and in addition it was proposed to call on them to rate the City for the purposes of the cattle plague. No man delighted more in good eating or drinking than Aldermen, and they should be the last to find fault with any attempts to put down the cattle plague. [Mr. CRAWFORD: I am not an Alderman, nor do I delight in eating or drinking.] He did not know what the hon. Member did delight in, and he would not inquire. He was not an Alderman, but he (Mr. Crawford) represented the City, and if the City had submitted to be rated by the Metropolitan Board of Works for sewage and improvements he (Mr. Locke) was at a loss to know what objection the City could have on that occasion to the proposal before the Committee. Then with regard to the police. There could be no doubt that the City police were regulated by the corporation with the greatest propriety, and so were the Metropolitan police by Sir Richard Mayne. If the Metropolitan Board of Works were empowered to call in the assistance of the latter, what objection could there be to their having also the assistance of the City police. The only grievance the City had to complain of was that that courtesy had not been displayed towards it which, if they had had notice of the intention of the Government, would have enabled them to have got up an opposition to the proposal, and to have brought vividly before the Committee, with all the force they possessed, the merits of local self-government. That, no doubt, was a very good thing; but if one great piece of the metropolis was to be parcelled out to the inconvenience of the whole of the inhabitants, then the sooner that species of local self-government was put an end to the better. He contended there should be only one governing body for the metropolis. The City ought to spread its aegis over the metropolis, and its host of officers be occupied for the general benefit of the whole.

MR. HUNT

said, he thought the metropolitan Members laboured under some misapprehension as to the extent of the contributions which their constituents might be called upon to make on account of beasts dying through the cattle plague. Travelling by railway having been prohibited, it was very unlikely that cattle would come into the metropolis and die there; and if hon. Members would vote with him upon a question subsequently to be discussed, that animals landed from foreign countries should be slaughtered at the port of entry, the risk would be still further diminished. The question of metropolitan government was interesting to many hon. Members, and no doubt much attention would be given to it during the Session. But on the present occasion, when time was of great importance, when they all had made great personal sacrifices in withholding criticizms, both upon clauses in the Bill and upon the objections made to them, in order that progress might be made as rapidly as possible in the attainment of a great public object, he did deprecate the introduction into the debate of such questions as metropolitan government.

MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCE

said, he wished to ask the hon. Gentleman having charge of the Bill to point out any clause in it securing the metropolis against double taxation, first at the hands of the various counties into which its population extended, and next at the hands of the Board of Works.

MR. BARING

Not in the Bill. It is in the schedule.

Amendment agreed to.

Last paragraph of Clause struck out.

Words struck out.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6 (Power to assemble General Sessions).

MR. BARING moved that the clause be struck out.

MR. ACLAND

said, he wished to ask what were the means which the Government proposed to adopt for the purpose of securing the holding of these sessions.

MR. BARING

said, that he proposed to bring up a clause providing that sessions should be held on the Monday after the passing of the Act unless they are adjourned to some earlier day, in order that no time should be lost in taking the measures necessary for giving effect to the Act.

Clause struck out.

Clause 7 (Power of the Local Authority to form Committee of its own Members and others).

MR. ACLAND

said, he hoped that a little facility would be given in order to enable courts of sessions to act with freedom and without being hampered by undue formalities.

MR. ADDERLBY

said, he would suggest the postponement of Clause 7. He feared that in the end the action of these several committees might tend towards the reproduction of evils similar to those which were now complained of. It would be much better, he thought, to trust to the action of a central body.

SIR JOHN SIMEON

said, he approved the clause as it stood, and hoped the Under Secretary would not allow himself to be persuaded to abandon it.

MR. HUNT

said, he thought the objections of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Adderley) might be met by inserting a few words to secure uniformity of action among the committees. He proposed that the clause should be amended by the addition of the words— But in the exercise of such powers all such committees shall act according to such uniform rules as may be laid down by such local authority.

MR. BARING

said, he had no objection to the introduction of those words.

MR. ADDERLEY

said, he must still insist on the necessity of making it clear by Act of Parliament how the different local authorities were to act. It had been observed that the clause was merely permissive, but it was precisely to its permissive character that he objected. He was anxious to ensure as much as possible uniformity of action.

MR. H. A. BRUCE

said, the court of quarter sessions would meet and appoint its committees. In some counties it would be convenient to have but one committee, in others more. It would, therefore, be very objectionable to limit the clause in the way proposed. When more than one committee was appointed, it was to be supposed that they would act upon uniform rules. The acts of the committees would impose rates upon the counties, and one of the first things upon which they would agree was the rules for slaughter.

SIR FITZROY KELLY

said, that in the county which he represented (Suffolk) they had an association divided into as many subdivisions as there were unions in the county, and notwithstanding all their efforts it had been found, over and over again, that sometimes upon very minute points, and often upon most important matters—such as dealing with animals attacked or in danger—there were conflicting regulations. He was perfectly satisfied, therefore, that if there were a number of committees in each county there would be conflicting rules, conflicting principles, conflicting decisions, and conflicting action.

SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE

said, he thought that the objections of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Adderley) were addressed rather to the Government Bill as it was originally framed than as it stood at present. In the two counties with which he was most acquainted (Surrey and Lanarkshire), the appointment of several committees would be absolutely necessary, if the Act were to be carried into operation. The central authorities must delegate their powers to committees, to say whether wholesale slaughtering should be carried out or not.

MR. BONHAM-CARTER

said, he hoped the Government would adhere to the clause. There would be the greatest inconvenience felt if it were made incumbent on every farmer to send to the central authority before he could kill his beast. It would defeat the object of the Bill. There should be special committees in every part of each county, in order that the members of them might be referred to without any delay or expense.

MR. HUNT

said, he believed they might rely on the good sense of the committees to confer with one another. But, in order to relieve his right hon. Friend (Mr. Adder-ley's) fears, they might add a proviso—that on the formation of two or more committees, such committees should act according to such uniform rules as shall be agreed on by those committees, or shall be laid down by such local authority.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, that unless local committees were directly responsible to the central authority there would be no uniform system, and it would be impossible to enforce the provisions of the Bill.

MR. BARING

said, that the subordination of the local committees was provided for by the words of the clause. The committees would certainly act according to the rules laid down by the local authority, which was empowered to delegate powers to them.

MR. ADDERLEY

said, he wished the committees to be simply executive, and not legislative. If they had legislative powers there would be greater confusion under the Bill than there was under the Orders in Council.

MR. BARING

then altered his Amendment as follows:— In the case of the formation of two or more committees, such committees shall act according to the rules laid down for their guidance by such local authority.

Amendment agreed to.

Words added.

Clause, as amended, agreed to. [cl. 8.]

Clauses 8 and 9 struck out.

Clause 10 (Appointment of Inspectors and other Officers).

MR. BARING moved to add words taken from the Bill of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt) to the effect that persons appointed inspectors before the passing of the Act should remain in office unless their appointments were revoked. He also proposed to add a proviso which at first might appear rather stringent —it was that the certificate of an inspector should be conclusive evidence of a beast having been diseased. Such a provision would be unjust if compensation were not provided, but, with compensation, some such provision was necessary in order to prevent vexatious prosecutions.

Amendment moved to insert the words— Provided that all Persons appointed Inspectors before the passing of this Act under the Authority of any Order of the Lords of Her Majesty's Privy Council relative to the Cattle Plague, and being such at the passing of this Act, shall be Cattle Inspectors to act in the execution of this Act in and for the Districts for which they respectively were appointed; but any such Appointment may at any Time be revoked by the Authority that would be empowered to revoke it if it had been made under this Act. The Certificate of an Inspector of the Local Authority that an Animal is affected by Cattle Plague shall for the Purposes of this Act be conclusive Evidence in all Courts of Justice and elsewhere of its having been so affected.

MR. HUNT

This puts a very great power into the hands of the inspector. He may go into any farmyard and order animals to be slaughtered, and the owner would only get in the shape of compensation half the value of the slaughtered animal. Then, what is the meaning of "cattle overseers," as distinguished from the "inspectors?"

MR. HENLEY

said, that in some counties the inspectors were not persons of any veterinary knowledge at all. Indeed, he was told that many were policemen. Was it desirable that their fiat as to slaughtering should be final? If it were, the office should always be filled by properly qualified veterinary surgeons. How otherwise could their scientific judgment be relied on?

SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMID

said, that if an inspector's certificate were made conclusive evidence, he could not be proceeded against for fraud.

MR. HUNT

said, that under the Orders in Council they were required to appoint an inspector, who should be a veterinary surgeon, "or other duly qualified person." He believed by that was intended a person acquainted, in a sufficient degree, with the veterinary art, and he objected on that ground in his county to the appointment of policemen to be inspectors. He did not think that they were within the spirit of the words relating to qualification. He was aware, however, that in many counties they had appointed policemen, and in one county he had heard of a shoemaker being appointed inspector. What special knowledge that person might have he did not know. [Mr. BARING: He deals in hides.] Yes, but I think he had better have stuck to his last. If, however, the fiat of the inspector was to be conclusive, some words on that subject would require to be introduced.

MR. FLOYER

said, that in the county he represented (Dorsetshire), and also at Southampton, policemen had been appointed. He thought that no persons were better fitted for the post of cattle inspectors than the officers of police. The hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt) appeared to think that veterinary surgeons were better qualified for inspectorships than the police. The inspectors throughout the country were at present the veterinary surgeons, and it would be seen by a letter that recently appeared in The Times that they complained of being overworked. Every one hoped that some remedy might be discovered for this terrible infliction; and, if it so pleased Providence, the veterinary surgeons might be better employed in attending to cattle, and applying that remedy than in attending to details most of which had nothing to do with the veterinary art. The police, on the other hand, were always present and able to see to the cleansing of sheds and places where cattle had been, and to their burial when dead, better than any veterinary surgeon could do. The only thing the latter was required for was to give his professional opinion as to whether cattle were diseased and should be slaughtered; and after he had so given his opinion, the remainder would be better in the hands of the police. He did not mean to suggest that an animal should be slaughtered on the authority of a police officer alone; what he proposed was that the chief constable or sergeant of police should consult the veterinary surgeon as to the condition of any animal which they suspected to be attacked by the disease, and should then report to the local committee, with whom the ultimate decision should rest.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, he thought that the appointment of inspectors ought to be left entirely in the hands of the local committees. If the House laid down any rule enacting that no persons should be appointed inspectors unless they possessed certain qualifications, there might be districts in which no persons possessing those qualifications could be found. He did not think the clause now under discussion was sufficiently strong to prevent a man whose cattle had been slaughtered alleging that the cattle were sound. He might say, "My cattle never had the disease, and you had no right under the statute to slaughter them," and might bring an action for damages against the local authorities.

MR. BONHAM-CARTER

said, that the local inspectors in his county (Hants) were police. They had no special veterinary knowledge, but were very efficient in all other respects. If a herd were declared to be infected, were they to send for the in- spector, who might be twenty miles off, for every beast that was taken? That was impossible, and therefore a local cattle overseer would be required, who might be an intelligent tenant-farmer.

COLONEL NORTH

said, he thought that the inspector ought to be a person who knew something about the disease. The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Bonham-Carter) proposed that the duties of inspector should be jointly discharged by a police officer and a respectable tenant-farmer. He did not see what advantage would he gained by carrying the hon. Gentleman's proposal into effect; for a man might be a very respectable tenant-farmer, and know nothing whatever about the cattle plague.

MR. BARING

said, that there were several questions now before the House. The first was whether the words "cattle overseers" ought to be omitted. He agreed with the hon. Member (Mr. Hunt) that these words ought to be left out, for in the first place they had no definite meaning and might apply to a ploughboy or other ignorant person; and in the second they were used with a special meaning in the Bill of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt), which would come before the House for discussion. He thought that it would be very imprudent to define in the Bill from what class of persons the inspectors were to be drawn, or what qualifications they should possess, the circumstances of the different counties being so varied. Their appointment ought to be left entirely in the hands of the local authorities. If that were done, he believed that the local authorities would appoint proper persons to act as inspectors. For his part he believed that in many districts chief constables and superintendents of police would render very efficient services.

MR. HUNT

said, he strongly objected to the appointment of persons as inspectors without regard to their veterinary knowledge. It was not right that they should be intrusted with the power to order beasts to be killed, because they had not sufficient knowledge to justify the exercise of such power. But they had greater power. Their evidence in a court of law would be sufficient under the Orders in Council to cause a person to be punished for removing cattle declared by the inspector to be diseased. He could not see how as inspectors they were more than policemen. What were they to do as inspectors which they could not do as policemen, except that which they ought not to do?—namely, direct beasts to be killed. The clause provided that the certificate of the inspector should be conclusive in all courts of an animal having had the disease. It not only applied to the animal in question but to other animals in the same yard, or to any person who had been dealing with such animals. He should prefer the introduction of a few words protecting from actions at law inspectors acting bonâ fide and to the best of their judgment in the execution of their duty.

MR. HENLEY

said, that the power was great. Notwithstanding, it was proposed to intrust comparatively ignorant persons with it. The duties of the local authorities also were heavy, and he thought their inspectors should be men upon whom they could depend. He could not believe they would feel safe in trusting to the word of a shoemaker. Persons having not the slightest medical knowledge might be appointed inspectors. Common constables were to have this power, that the moment a fiat went out that cattle were diseased they must be killed. It was next provided that the local authorities should set to work and cause the field in which the beast had been to be disinfected. Now it was not a very easy process to disinfect a field. Since the proviso had been introduced without notice he thought the least the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary could do would be not to press the matter, but introduce it to the notice of the House when the Report was brought up.

MR. BARING

said, he was aware that notice should have been given if possible of his intention to introduce the proviso. He also felt the force of many of the objections, but time pressed, and he trusted the House would decide upon the case at once. He felt the necessity of the provision he had suggested, because without it any of the local authorities acting on the Bill would be liable to actions for so doing.

Words "cattle overseers"struck out.

Proviso agreed to, and added to clause.

Clause, as amended, agreed to. [cl. 9.]

Clause 11 (Power of Entry for Inspectors and others).

COLONEL NORTH

said, he wished to have some definition of the words that persons committing "such offence should be liable to a penalty not exceeding £20." He had put the question to the Home Secretary, whether the £20 applied to each head of cattle or to each transac- tion. The answer was per head. He wished to know whether the meaning of the clause was for each head or for not allowing the inspector to enter different parts of the farm.

MR. BARING

said, the power contained in the clause was a modified power. It did not authorize the inspector to enter at any time, but only when he had reasonable ground for suspecting that cattle infected by the plague were to be found. With respect to the question of the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel North), the point in question had not been decided by the Court of Queen's Bench at the time referred to. It was settled by the Bill.

MR. WALDEGRAVE-LESLIE

said, he had seen so much during the last four months of the manner in which the cattle plague was carried about by the inspectors, that he thought some check ought to be put upon their power of entering cattle sheds at all times. The inspectors went into sheds among cattle which were infected, and then, without changing their clothes, they went among cattle which were perfectly healthy, and he thought that if that were to continue some parts of the country that had hitherto escaped the plague would become liable to it. A cattle owner was liable to a penalty if he did not send notice that his cattle were diseased, and this was a sufficient protection. He therefore moved, as an Amendment to the clause, that after the words "for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this Act," in the seventh line, the following words should be added:— And before entering, he shall be bound to produce an affidavit, sworn before a justice of the peace, to the affect that he has such reasonable grounds for supposing that cattle affected by the cattle plague are there to be found.

MR. CARNEGIE

said, he should support the Amendment. He believed it was dangerous to allow the inspectors to go about among all the herds in the country. A man who owned a valuable herd would rather give an inspector £5, £10, or even £20 than allow him to enter his premises and spread the infection. Cases had been known where inspectors had forced their way into uninfected cattle sheds to get the fee.

MR. ST. AUBYN

said, he should support the clause as it stood.

SIR FITZROY KELLY

said, he agreed that some check ought to be put upon the power of inspectors. In many districts persona had been appointed who were ut- terly incompetent to discharge the duties of the office, simply for the want of competent inspectors. Instead of an affidavit, he would suggest that an inspector should obtain the authority of a magistrate to empower him to inspect cattle against the will of the owner. The inspectors would have no difficulty in obtaining that authority when it was necessary, and the authority would be some protection to the cattle owners.

MR. ACLAND

said, he thought the best course would be to require the inspector to act on the information of one or more neighbouring cattle owners or other credible persons. The inspectors would then be compelled to show their authority before going into any cattle shed. In his part of the country there was no human being so detested and dreaded as the cattle inspector.

MR. AYRTON

said, he was sorry to see that the zeal which had been shown at first in discussing the subject of the cattle plague had somewhat fallen off. He thought they ought to sustain the tone they had at first adopted, and support the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary in these measures, notwithstanding their stringency. There could be no fair objection to the inspectors having power to visit the cattle sheds. It was only carrying out the same principle which was observed in the case of inspectors of factories, and inspectors of mines. Why did they not strip the inspector, wash him, and fumigate him at once, instead of only making him swear an affidavit? He ridiculed the idea that inspectors would carry the plague about with them, and thought they ought to be fettered with no obstructions in the performance of their duties.

MR. KINNAIRD

said, he was astonished to find the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets disagreeing with the principle that a man's house was his castle. [Mr, AYRTON: Cattle shed.] He thought that the farmer ought not to have his premises invaded unnecessarily, and hoped that the hon. Member (Mr. Walde-grave-Leslie) would press his Amendment.

MR. WHALLEY

said, that the object would be obtained by requiring the inspector, if he should be requested to do so, to state in writing the grounds on which he entered the premises.

MR. BARING

said, he would accept the Amendment suggested by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley).

MR. WALDEGRAVE-LESLIE

said, he believed that some of the inspectors were unable to write. He hoped that the Government would adopt his Amendment.

MR. HENLEY

said, that first of all every constable was empowered to take action under this Bill, and now they were to be required to record their reasons for acting in writing. That was getting on, he thought. They had to provide as far as possible against the spread of the disease, and they must remember that on the first appearance of the plague in a district there were always a good many gaping people— constables sometimes, as well as others— who went to the farms where the disease existed to have what they called a "look," thereby spreading the disease. It was always dangerous to encourage people to visit those spots at their own will and pleasure, and they should remember that the grounds upon which policemen acted were not always the soundest. By fining a man £20 if he did not announce the appearance of the disease, and by offering him compensation if he did, they were holding out the two strongest inducements by which people were influenced—hope and fear. He thought that the clause was, on the whole, likely to be more productive of mischief than of good.

MR. GOODSON

said, he thought that all objections would be met by providing that the officers should act by direction of the local authorities.

MR. WHALLEY

said, he thought that if the inspectors recorded in writing their reasons for acting, it would soon be seen whether they exceeded their powers or not. If, however, inspectors were only to act in individual cases upon the authority of the local authorities, they would frequently have to lose much valuable and important time in gaining access to the authorities.

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU

said, that by a clause in the Bill, the disinfection of inspectors was already provided for. As it was the interest of local authorities to prevent the spreading of infection, they would take precautions against the inspectors going about to spread the infection.

MR. HENLEY

said, he would suggest the omission of the words "any constable or police officer."

MR. BARING

said, he would agree to the suggestion.

MR. HUNT

said, that in many instances police officers were appointed inspectors, and as they were always bound to appear in uniform, their disinfection would not be an easy matter. So notorious had this fact become, that in some counties, instead of being called "inspectors," the people Styled them "infectors." He thought it might be better to strike out the whole clause.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he approved the omission of the words "any constable or police officer." The objection of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) was a sound one. It was advisable that the inspection should be limited to officers properly qualified. It was, however, necessary to retain the clause, because as the local authorities were empowered to slay suspected animals, they must have means of arriving at a judgment upon the matter. He thought the Amendment proposed by the hon, Member (Mr. Whalley) would act as a check on inspectors.

Words proposed to be left out by Mr. BARING, struck out.

MR. WHALLEY

then moved the addition of the following words at the end of the clause:— Provided always that such inspector shall, if required, state in writing the grounds upon which he has entered such premises for the purpose aforesaid.

MR. M'LAGAN moved an Amendment that inspectors should be required to visit the places in which diseased animals were buried, and see that the requirement was carried out.

MR. BARING

said, that would lead to the spread of infection.

Amendment negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to. [cl. 10.]

Clauses 19 and 20 struck out.

Clause 50 (Confirmation of Orders).

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU

said, that the clause was intended to indemnify all persons who had acted under the Orders of the Privy Council, and, indeed, to indemnify the Privy Council themselves for the Orders they had issued; and the fact that it was proposed at all was a proof that the Government had a doubt as to the legality of their proceedings. The Lord Chancellor was reported to have said the other day that although the Government had acted under his advice in promulgating these Orders of the Privy Council, yet it might be doubtful whether they came under the terms of the Act, or, in other words, whether they were legal; and if they were not legal all persons whose animals had been killed under those Orders had an undoubted right to bring an action at law and claim damages. The farmers throughout the country had, however, behaved most submissively. For the good of the nation they had never resisted the Orders in Council or questioned their legality; and not only had they had their diseased animals slaughtered, but many sound cattle had also been slaughtered through the ignorance of the inspectors. Now, the effect of the clause would be to take away the farmers' legal right in such cases. He did not desire to prevent the passing of the clause; but he thought the Government should state that they were willing to bring up the 18th clause, which they had themselves originally introduced, and grant retrospective compensation.

MR. HUNT

said, he did not see the necessity of raising that question then, because when the 18th clause was left out it was understood that they were to deal with it subsequently. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe) had suggested to the Secretary of State that the clause should be withdrawn, on the ground that it ought to be considered separately, and that it was doubtful whether the retrospective compensation ought to come out of the same fund as that which was to be provided by the Bill; and it had been withdrawn in accordance with that suggestion. It was understood when Clause 18 was struck out that something of a similar kind was to be proposed subsequently, not in this Bill, but in another shape. He hoped, therefore, no doubt existed that the Government were pledged to the retrospective principle.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he was very sorry that his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had been obliged, through over exertion and the pressure of public business, to quit the House, and also that he had had no opportunity of consulting with his right hon. Friend as to his exact meaning in respect to that dropped clause relating to retrospective compensation. But having himself been present when it was dropped, he could say that it was dropped, not because the case of these parties ought not to be considered, but because relating to a back claim, whatever it was, it was in no way urgent, and need not interfere with the other parts of the Bill that required to be pushed forward. His right hon. Friend, he was sure, was now quite as much disposed to consider the case of these persons as when he introduced the clause.

MR. HENLEY

said, the explanation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was quite satisfactory if the right hon. Gentleman meant to say that those persons who had willingly obeyed what they thought to be the law should not be put in a worse position than those whose cattle might be slaughtered hereafter.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he did not say, nor would he then pretend to form an opinion on the subject, that the parties who preferred retrospective claims should be dealt with precisely like those who had to be dealt with prospectively. He thought the former case was different in some respects from the latter, but he had no doubt his right hon Friend would be as ready as he was at first to consider it upon its merits.

MR. HENLEY

Nullum simile est idem. I take it to be admitted that they have a fair claim to compensation, and that the Government will, at all events, bring up some clause upon the subject.

Clause agreed to. [cl. 32.]

On Motion of Mr. BARING, Clause 6 A (Power to assemble adjourned Sessions), and Clause 7 B (Meeting of Local Authority in Scotland), added to the Bill.

MR. BARING moved to add a new clause (Clause 20 C)— Where any animal has been slaughtered under the provisions of this Act, the owner of such animal shall not be entitled to receive, in respect of the insurance of such animal, any sum which, together with the payment he receives for such animal under the provisions of this Act, shall exceed the sum which he would otherwise have been entitled to receive in respect of such insurance. The relief such a clause would give to the insurance associations would enable them to continue in existence. The object of the provision was to ensure the proper working of the insurance companies, and of the means of providing proper compensation.

MR. HUNT

said, he thought that if the clause passed the persons assuring should have returned to them a proportionate part of the premiums paid to the insurance associations, since they would only receive a small sum from the associations.

SIR FITZROY KELLY

said, the effect of the clause would be to do justice between the parties. It would be unfair to compel the insurance companies to pay the whole sum assured for animals slaughtered under the Act, but they could scarcely complain of having to pay £100 out of £400, the remaining £300 being paid to the assurer by way of compensation out of the county rate.

SIR JAMES FERGUSSON

said, he thought the clause would operate unjustly to the assurer, inasmuch as he would have paid the premium to the association, as well as having to contribute towards the county rate, while his more unthrifty neighbour would get the same amount of compensation having only contributed to the county rate.

MR. NEATE

said, he thought the matter required further consideration.

LORD HENRY THYNNE moved that the clause be postponed. He said that it benefited the insurance offices at the expense of the county rate.

MR. BARING

said, he hoped the Committee would pass the clause, as it would benefit the insurance associations without throwing any additional burden upon the county rate. Unless the clause were carried the Act would impose great hardship upon the insurance associations, since the sound cattle slaughtered under the provisions of the Act might not have died from the effects of the disease, and therefore the Act, without the clause, would simply deprive the associations of so much money. The effect of the clause had been quite correctly stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir FitzRoy Kelly). If it were not inserted in the Bill the owner of an animal ordered to be slaughtered would be entitled to receive three-fourths of the value of the animal, and the same amount from the insurance company, so that he would receive the full value of the animal and one-half more. The county rate would, under the clause proposed, be bound to pay compensation, and then the insurance company would pay any difference there might be between the amount of the compensation and the sum for which the animal was insured.

MR. AYRTON

said, the clause merely enabled the owner to deduct from the compensation what he received from the insurance office. The principle of the insurance company was only to pay the salvage.

Clause agreed to.

MR. BARING

proposed a clause that the Act should continue in force until the first day of June, 1867, and until the end of the then Session of Parliament, and no longer.

MR. HUNT

reminded the Government that power was to be taken to discontinue the Bill supposing a remedy were found for the cattle plague. He did not understand that any clause to that effect had been introduced.

MR. BARING

said, a clause would be brought up to that effect on the Report.

Clause agreed to. [cl 34.]

Schedule 1.

Amendment proposed, to insert the words "counties including any town or place which does not return or contribute to return a Member to Parliament."— (The Lord Advocate.)

SIR JAMES FERGUSSON moved to insert words limiting the operation of the schedule in the case of Scotch towns to such as have a population of not less than 20,000.

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, by adding, at the end thereof, the words "and which has not a population of twenty thousand inhabitants."—(Sir James Fergusson.)

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The Committee divided: — Ayes 24; Noes 26: Majority 2.

On Question that the Schedule, as amended, stand part of the Bill,

MR. CRAUFURD

said, he wished to ask the Lord Advocate whether he intended to introduce into the Bill those clauses which he suggested giving permissive powers to the magistrates in boroughs to unite with counties, or to place themselves under the counties in cases where they should think it desirable for the purposes of the Act.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, it would be very desirable that such a power should be introduced into the Bill; but considering the stage at which the Bill had now arrived that could only be done in another place.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Preamble agreed to.

On Question that the Chairman report the Bill, as amended, to the House,

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that the Bill would come on as an Order of the Day to-morrow after the notice with respect to the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland.

SIR FITZROY KELLY

said, he wished to inquire whether it was the intention of the Government to pass the Bill to-morrow?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he hoped so. It was intended to move the third reading after the Report bad been received.

House resumed.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To morrow.