COMMITTEE (ON RE-COMMITMENT).

HC Deb 22 February 1866 vol 181 cc928-55

[The Bill having been Committed, Recommitted, and Considered as Amended, without having been re-printed, great difficulty has been experienced in following out the Motions for Amendments, particularly those of which no Notice had been given. When a Clause has been agreed to, with or without Amendment, the small figures added refer to the No. of the corresponding Clause in the re-print of the Bill No. 32.]

Bill considered in Committee (on re-commitment).

(In the Committee.)

Clause 25 (Publication of Abstract of Act). Clause B.

MR. ACLAND

opposed the clause as being most dangerous.

MR. HUNT

consented to its omission.

Clause struck out.

Clause 26 (Provision as to removal of Beasts brought by Sea), Clause C agreed to [cl. 40.]

Clause 27 (As to right to turn out Beasts on Commons). Clause D.

MR. ACLAND

objected to the adoption of this clause. It would give full liberty to persons to move cattle freely across moors and other open places.

MR. MITFORD

said, that if the clause was not adopted the result would ruin some hundred small farmers in his district. These persons sent their cattle to graze on commons, and if the clause were rejected they would be ruined.

MR. HUNT

said, that he had not introduced the clause, nor did he give it his approval.

Question put, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 15; Noes 144: Majority 129.

Clause struck out.

Clause 28 (Diseased Beasts not to be turned out on Commons). Clause E.

SIR ANDREW AGNEW

proposed to add at the end of the clause the following words:— Any person wilfully driving, or allowing any cattle under his charge to be driven, or to stray into any field sufficiently fenced without the consent of the owner or occupier thereof, shall, on conviction before two justices of the peace, be liable to a penalty not exceeding £20, or to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding thirty days, and the cattle may be slaughtered by order of the said justices if they so think fit.

MR. BARING

trusted that his hon. Friend would withdraw the addition, and allow it to come up on the Report.

MR. HUNT

hoped they would have no clauses proposed on the Report, and entreated the Committee to dispose that evening of all the matters in dispute, in order that when they came to the Report there might be nothing left to be done but to make such verbal alterations as would render the language of the Bill clear.

MR. BARING

said, he felt bound to oppose the insertion of the proposed words unless they were brought forward for discussion upon the Report. Penalties like that of thirty days' hard labour could not be imposed upon persons without due consideration.

SIR ANDREW AGNEW

said, he would consent to withdraw his Amendment for the present, and bring it up again on the Report. It was very essential that the malpractices of drovers should be prevented by proper punishment.

MR. HUNT

explained that when he ex- pressed the hope that there would be no new clauses on the Report, he did not mean to refer to the Amendments desired by the Scotch Members, who, he understood, had met that day and agreed as to what was necessary to make the Bill applicable to Scotland.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, he hoped to have the clauses applicable to Scotland ready for delivery that night.

MR. BARING

said, a number of Amendments and new clauses had been put upon the paper only that morning, to which he had not been able to give more than a casual and imperfect consideration. He must, therefore, distinctly reserve, on behalf of his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, his right to raise any question on the Report.

MR. HUNT

must say he trusted that the way in which they had received at the hands of his hon. Friend, during the passage of the Government Bill through Committee, several clauses which were in manuscript only would form some sort of precedent for the spirit in which his own clauses would be received by the Committee.

MR. WALDEGRAVE-LESLIE

thought that the Amendment proposed by the hon. Baronet (Sir Andrew Agnew) was very important. There was a case within his own knowledge where a drover had bought some cattle which proved to be diseased, and turned these beasts into a field on a farm without the occupier's permission. The consequence was, that the cattle on the farm had become infected, and the farmer had suffered a severe loss. Such acts required to be stopped by severe punishments.

SIR JAMES FERGUSSON

also argued that a penalty of a much more stringent character than a fine of £5 was absolutely necessary to protect stock-owners against such serious crimes.

MR. HUNT

suggested, that the object in view might be attained by adding to the end of the 28th clause words to the effect that any person wilfully driving or allowing any beast under his charge to be driven or to stray into any field that was sufficiently fenced, without the consent of the owner, should be deemed to have moved such beast in contravention of the Act. In that way the offender would be brought under the general penalties of the Bill.

Amendment withdrawn; the words added, as moved by Mr. Hunt; and clause, as amended, agreed to. [cl. 41.]

Clause 29 (Defining Counties to which certain parishes belong). Clause E.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 30 (Appointment of general Cattle Inspectors).

MR. BARING

objected to the clause in its present form.

Clause postponed.

Clause 31 (Inspection of Cattle Sheds). Clause H.

MR. AYRTON

drew attention to the fact that the clause made no provision for the payment of the inspectors to be appointed under it.

MR. M'LAREN

said the clause was very-important. Of 1,100 cows in the city of Edinburgh 600 had died of the cattle plague, which had spread with amazing rapidity in consequence of the imperfect accommodation provided in that city. He hoped that the power given by this clause to the magistrates to remedy the state of things to which he had referred would not be taken away. There was no difficulty whatever in reference to the payment of the inspectors, as the officers at present in the employ of the magistrates would be able to fulfil the duties imposed by the clause, or in case of any difficulty the magistrates themselves might act as inspectors.

MR. CUMMING-BRTJCE

hoped the clause would be allowed to remain in the Bill.

MR. WALDEGRAVE-LESLIE

regarded the clause as the most valuable part of the whole Bill. He hoped that in future sanatory regulations with respect to cattle would be more strictly enforced.

MR. AYRTON

said, he had merely wished to point out the fact that the clause did not state how the inspectors were to be remunerated. He might also remark that in many towns there were no persons who answered to the description of magistrates of boroughs, except the police magistrates, within whose functions the appointment of cattle inspectors could scarcely be intended to come.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

thought no difficulty would arise as to the payment of the inspectors to be appointed under this clause. In his opinion the scope of the clause might be extended with advantage; for if cow-sheds and large dairies were prohibited in large towns it would be a good step.

MR. LEEMAN

suggested that the local authorities, for the purposes of this clause, should be deemed to be the local Boards of Health or the town councils in place of the magistrates of boroughs, and that such local authorities should have the power to pay the expenses to be incurred under this clause out of the borough rate.

SIR GEORGE GREY

thought it a pity to waste time in discussing a clause of this character when the Bill was only to be in force until the 24th of March. If the existing large dairies in towns were to be done away with during the suspension of the cattle traffic, what was to become of the cows? The subject might be worth consideration with the view to permanent legislation, but it should not be dealt with in a temporary Bill like that now before the House.

Clause agreed to. [cl. 45.]

Clauses 32 and 33 struck out.

Clause 3 (Interpretation).

On the Motion of Mr. HUNT, the first paragraph of the clause defining the term "beast," was struck out.

Further Amendments made.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 30 (Appointment of general Cattle Inspectors) amended, and agreed to. [cl 44.]

MR. HUNT

said, the discussion of the clause he was now about to move would probably occupy more time than any other clause which had been taken into consideration during the evening. This clause related to imported beasts; and the principle upon which it was based was that imported beasts should, if possible, be slaughtered at the place of landing, or, if that were wholly impossible from the circumstances of any port, that they should be taken to the nearest slaughterhouse, there to be slaughtered, or to lairs adjacent, where they should remain until they were slaughtered; and that under no circumstances whatever should they be taken to any market or fair. That was the principle on which he had endeavoured to frame the clause. He had originally proposed that there should be a power of moving cattle to a distance "not exceeding 500 yards" from the port. At that' time, however, he was unable to say whether that would be a sufficient distance in the case of all the ports; but he had since taken care to ascertain the circumstances of every port in reference to this matter. As far as he knew, the clause he had put on the paper must be amended in certain respects in order to suit the convenience of some of those ports, though at the same time it was not his intention to infringe the principle which he had laid down in preparing the clause. The alterations he had to propose would give certain relaxations with regard to several ports, but except in the case of two of them the distance would not be extended beyond a mile. The clause he should propose was in these terms— Any live beast landed from a vessel at any port, if sound, may, notwithstanding anything in this Act, be moved on a highway to a slaughterhouse, or to any lair, yard, or building adjacent to a slaughterhouse near the place of landing for slaughter; but this enactment shall not authorize the moving of any beast on a highway in any case beyond the district of the local authority within whose district is the port of landing, or for a greater distance than one mile even within those limits. He believed those words would satisfy the requirements of all the seaport towns, with two exceptions, Leith and Bristol. Leith was rather more than three miles from the slaughterhouses at Edinburgh; but the whole of the road along which cattle would go to it from the port of Leith was wholly separated either by wharf warehouses or market gardens from any places where beasts were kept. That, therefore, was an exceptional case. Then came the case of the port of Bristol. Now, there was no licensed slaughterhouse, nor any yard or lair, adjacent to that port, within the jurisdiction of the mayor and corporation of Bristol. The place of landing was about two miles and a half from the licensed slaughterhouses of that city. He was informed that all these slaughterhouses lay very near together, and that there were yards adjoining them in which animals could be kept until they were slaughtered. The route to the slaughterhouse was through quays and streets, and he believed there was no beast known to be kept in any place abutting upon the road along which the animals would have to pass. It seemed to him that the port of Bristol might fairly be made an exception to the general rule. He would not deal with the case of Liverpool, as his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves) would bring forward the case of that port. He would be prepared to deal with that case when it arose, and he should advocate adherence to the general principle he had laid down. He came now, however, to the much-vexed question as to the port of London, and he must repeat what he had said the other day, that he did not intend, if he could help it, to make an exception in the case of London. The London market was the central market for the supply of meat to all parts of the country. At the present time—and the regulation would continue till the 24th of March—no beast within the meaning of the Act would be able to enter the London market except the few beasts which were kept within a six-mile radius of that market—and there were, in fact, none, or next to none, within that radius. He confessed this was a strong proposition; but he hoped the Committee would think the circumstances of the case warranted it. They had stopped the use of all cattle-trucks until they had been cleansed, and they had stopped the transit of cattle by railway—and this they had done, in order to insure against spreading the infection. Now the London market was the centre and focus of infection. Indeed, those who had inquired into the matter were thoroughly satisfied that the disease was carried into the provinces from the Metropolitan Market, though the provinces had returned the favour by sending it back again to the London market until the passing of the Act which had just received the Royal Assent, The consequence had been that nearly all the lairs in the immediate neighbourhood of the Loudon market were infected. The metropolitan Members might be sceptical as to his theories on infection, but they were based upon the opinions and observations of those who had studied the subject. Now, it was a generally admitted fact that the chance of infection was nowhere greater than when the animals were placed upon infected ground. If, however, no new animals were put into such lairs, and no fresh moisture admitted, the place became more or less desiccated and disinfected. If that were so, he had made out a strong case for the disuse for a time of the Metropolitan Market and the lairs connected with it. He would now proceed to another point, and here he confessed he felt strongly the necessity of what he should propose. By the Bill which had just received the Royal Assent, no British beast could enter the Metropolitan Market, unless uninfected and from within a six-mile radius. The plague had carried off all the beasts within that radius except milch cows, and they were very few; and he was told that nearly the whole of the lairs in the market and in its neighbourhood were infected, and therefore that cattle put into those lairs would run the highest possible amount of risk. But were they to admit foreign beasts into the London market when British beasts were excluded? If it could be shown that there was a necessity for doing so, his case was gone. He did not wish to give the British dealer a single advantage over the foreign dealer, but he was bound to protect the former against the latter. Unless his Bill were carried in its entirety, the foreign beasts would gain such an enormous advantage, that the foreign dealer would really have a monopoly of the market. He had no fear of the London market not being supplied with dead meat, and he would, moreover, encourage the bringing of dead meat from abroad. He would further encourage the importation of live beasts from abroad and from Ireland; but he would have them slaughtered at the port at which they were landed, allowing them to travel such a distance as might be consistent with safety, and giving them no advantage over English beasts which could be avoided. If it were necessary that beasts should be slaughtered at the Metropolitan Market, there was an end of his case, and he admitted the seriousness of the proposition he was making. Within the last few days he had made a personal examination of the neighbourhood of the wharves where imported cattle were landed. The port of London had four wharves specially applied to that purpose. Dublin-wharf, near the Tower, was the highest up the river, and was a very small one. Newcastle-wharf was a small one and little business was done at it. The wharf at which most cattle were landed was Brown's-wharf, Poplar, and then there was the Brunswick-wharf at Blackwall. Upon the quay of the last-named wharf, there was what seemed to him to be a very large building in which cattle not passed by the inspectors were slaughtered. The evidence taken by the Commission showed that the meshes of the inspectors' nets were very wide, and that many infected animals slipped through them, as, owing to the pressure of business, it was impossible that complete examination could be made in the allotted time. Many infected animals, therefore, got into the London market. He saw one at Brunswick-wharf that was being dressed, and it was so decidedly unhealthy that it could not have been passed as a sound one even by one of the metropolitan Members, who were better judges of men than they were of beasts. The building, however, was large enough to give great accommodation for slaughtering beasts. At Brown's-wharf he was informed there was considerable accommodation for the slaughter of beasts. A few days ago he received a communication from a gentleman named Odams, representing that he was manager of, and principal shareholder in, a company called the Wharfing and Warehousing Company, which had extensive premises immediately contiguous to the Victoria Docks. Mr. Odams let him have a plan of the premises, which were built for the petroleum trade, and if the Committee would allow him he would exhibit it just as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had once shown the House certain articles manufactured out of a new material. [The hon. Gentleman here held up the plan to the view of the Committee.] The wharf where those premises were was from 500 to 800 yards below the place where most beasts were now landed. There were sixteen sheds now on the premises, ten of them 150 feet long by 30 wide, and six the same length by 60 feet wide. Three of those larger sheds were open at one side, and were exceedingly well ventilated, the roof being to some extent open in order to allow the fumes of the petroleum to escape. These three sheds were admirably adapted for the reception of the animals, and for judging them before they were slaughtered. There were on the other side three more sheds 150 feet long by 60 wide, which would be available for dead meat to hang by the carcass or joint until sent away. He would no doubt be asked, were they high enough for the purpose? Experience was the best test. He had the height of the beam in Brunswick-wharf, from which he saw the ox suspended measured, and the carcass did not touch the ground. He had himself measured the buildings which he now recommended as a fit place for slaughterhouses, and found that the same height could be obtained there. He would admit that at the present moment there were no beams fixed, but there were piers strengthening the brick-work at every ten feet, and from each pier beams could be placed. The beams which he saw used at Brunswick-wharf were movable, and similar ones might be obtained from any timber merchant's yard at thirty-six hours' notice. So much for the capabilities of the place inside; but how about getting the beasts there? That, he admitted, was the weak part of the case. The landing-place had been constructed only for the reception of barrels and casks, and in its present state beasts could not be safely landed there. But Mr. Odams said that if the place were used for slaughtering animals during the month of March, and if he was properly remunerated, he would be prepared at the end of a week to have stages up so that beasts could be landed there. Whether that could be done or not he would not say, for he was no judge; but he believed Mr. Odams would undertake that they could. It might be said now, "Oh! here is the Member for Northamptonshire got hold of by a man who wants to turn his premises to account." But he told Mr. Odams that he must be excused if he took his statement with reserve, and should wish to have it confirmed by some person in the trade. Mr. Odams said that was perfectly reasonable, and he should be furnished with the confirmation he desired. Accordingly, he had received a letter from Mr. Odams giving the authority of Mr. Baker for what he had said. He did not himself know Mr. Baker, but he was informed by one of the largest West End butchers that Mr. Baker was one of the most extensive slaughtermen and Government contractors that we had. In that letter Mr. Odams said that Mr. Baker, after comparing these premises with his own at Deptford, where his beasts were slaughtered, was of opinion that there was ample room on the premises for all the foreign cattle that would come into London up to July, and that there would be quite sufficient time to provide for the summer requirements. Now, the next question was, supposing those premises to be put to the use he proposed, would there be conveniences for getting away the meat? The time occupied in travelling by water from the premises in question to Woolwich Arsenal was only ten minutes; and this was a great point in connection with the supply of the victualling yards there. A more important point was the conveyance of meat to other parts of the country. There was abutting upon the premises, or within three or four yards of them, a line called the Old North Woolwich line, now in the hands of the Great Eastern Railway Company, and up to it were tramways, though of a different gauge, laid for the conveyance of goods. The London dead-meat market was not in direct communication with the premises, and at present dead meat could not be conveyed thence by rail to any point nearer than a mile of Newgate Market; but if permanent foreign cattle markets were contemplated, a line could be constructed through the sheds he had mentioned from the Old North Woolwich line, and that this could be extended in the other direction so as to reach the dead-meat market. Some weeks ago the Secretary for the Home Department was kind enough to say to him, "Granting you can supply London with dead meat, it does not follow that you can provide for the great inland towns." His plan, however, would show that those great towns could receive meat directly from Mr. Odam's premises, for the North Woolwich line communicated with the Great Northern, the Midland, the North-Western, and the Great Western Railways. It was possible that hon. Members representing metropolitan constituencies might say, "You have got a Member of Parliament to exercise his very poor judgment on the matter, and you have a greatly interested owner of premises, and a Government contractor, who would like to have the meat near the Deptford victualling yard which he supplies." If, however, he were to advance nothing further in support of his case, he confessed that it might be open to that objection; but he was going to cite the admission of two hostile witnesses who came to combat the scheme proposed. Their names were very well known through their having given evidence before the Cattle Plague Commissioners. Messrs. Honck and Hicks were two of the largest consignees of foreign cattle in London, and they therefore might be considered to represent the trade. They stated that great inconvenience would be entailed by slaughtering all the cattle at the port. He produced to them his scheme, and asked if they were acquainted with Mr. Odam's premises. They replied, "Oh, yes, we know them well; but we hope we shall not be driven to slaughter the cattle there." He then asked, "Do you mean to say there is no accommodation for slaughtering there?" They said, "Oh, yes; if it comes to that, there is accommodation." These were statements from persons whe would do all in their power to prevent the adoption of the scheme he had laid before the Committee. He then asked what was their objection, and they replied, "It will put us to great inconvenience if we have to remove the dead meat from these premises to the market in London." He said, "Why so? You can go by railway within a mile of the market." "Yes," they said, "but the customers who have usually attended in the London market will not be so ready to meet us at the place you have named, and, in consequence, the price of our meat will be depreciated." He then asked what would be the effect upon the trade of the Amendment carried the other day with regard to the prohibition of the movement of cattle by rail; but they did not give him an answer. He, however, learnt by the expression of their countenances that that Amendment would be very advantageous to them if they should succeed in getting foreign cattle to the port of London. It was perfectly obvious that if they secured the exclusive use of the market of London the value of their property would be very much enhanced. He told them he thought they had no right to complain. He (Mr. Hunt) said it would be an enormous advantage to the public if these premises and the land around could be secured as a permanent foreign cattle market. He believed that the greater part of the disease that affected our herds was derived through the medium of foreign cattle, and was of opinion that foreign fat cattle ought never to leave the port of London alive, and that all foreign store cattle in the port of London ought to be inspected and quarantined. If that was desirable he could not conceive any place better adapted to such purposes than the premises he had named. The land comprised an area of twenty-five acres. A great part of it was swampy and wanted filling up with ballast to make a standing place for beasts, but with some outlay of money he could not conceive that any place could be more adapted for the purpose. It was bounded on the south by the river, on the west by the Victoria Docks, on the east by a watercourse running through Plaistow Marshes, and on the north by the Old North Woolwich line. It was completely isolated, therefore, from all places where cattle not intended for immediate slaughter were kept by farmers or others. There was room there for slaughtering the animals, for dressing the meat and hanging it up till removal, for preparing the hides, hoofs, and horns; and there were facilities for carrying away the meat and those portions of the beasts which were not used as human food. This sounded like a magnificent scheme; and hon. Members might, perhaps, say that Mr. Odams had got hold of him, and that he had shown himself very ready to listen to that gentleman's recommendation of the premises; but he could assure them that Mr. Odams was a perfect stranger to him. He knew nothing about him or his company; but certainly it did appear to him that the proposal was one worthy of consideration. He asked Mr. Odams whether he had communicated with the Government, and he replied that he had done so. He said that as long ago as October he had communicated with the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department, and that, lately, he had communicated with the Under Secretary of State; adding that his letters had been acknowledged, but that no further notice had been taken of the matter. He had no doubt the Government had caused inquiries to be made, and the premises to be inspected by trustworthy persons; and if they had done so, what they would lay before the Committee would be a great guide in the matter. He must apologize to the Committee for having trespassed so long upon their attention; but the matter was an important and difficult one, and he was anxious to point out a way of getting out of the difficulty. If they were able to prevent foreign cattle landing in London from obtaining an advantage over their own, and keeping up the infection, a great step would be gained. He had put this information before the Committee, and he hoped they would support him in the views he had stated.

Moved, in place of former Clause 15 to insert, Any live beast landed from a vessel at any port, if sound, may, notwithstanding anything in this Act, be moved on a highway to a slaughterhouse, or a lair or building adjoining thereto, for slaughter; but this enactment shall not authorize the moving of a beast on a highway in any case for a greater distance than one mile, or beyond the limits of the district of the local authority within whose district is the port of landing, save that beasts landed at the port of Leith may be moved by the direct route thence to the public slaughterhouse in Edinburgh for immediate slaughter."—(Mr. Hunt.)

Clause brought up, and read the first and second time.

On Question, "That the clause be added to the Bill,"

MR. AYRTON

said, that the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt), as well as one or two friends who were supporting him, appeared to be very jealous of any one knowing anything about the cattle plague. He (Mr. Ayrton) never had pretended to any special knowledge of the subject. He had intervened once or twice on the general principles of legislation, and he thought that on each occasion of his intervention the hon. Member admitted he was wrong, or else made a correction exactly in the sense he had suggested. He was going to intervene now because the hon. Member was not only dealing with the cattle plague in the country, but was plaguing them with the cattle disease in town. The elaborate speech just delivered by the hon. Member went to show that he felt the question to be a difficult one, and that he entertained very great doubt of what he was doing. [Mr. HUNT: No!] Well, the hon. Gentleman ought to entertain very great doubt of it. He would now call the attention of the Committee to the present position of the question, both as regarded London and other large towns. The fundamental error with which the hon. Gentleman began and ended was the supposition that the foreigner would get a great advantage if this protective clause were not carried. According to the present law cattle imported into any port could not be moved except by sea from the port into which they had been brought; but, practically, there was a very large area of England into which foreign cattle could be imported. London was not the only town of cattle import. The inland towns would derive a benefit from the regulation preventing imported cattle from being conveyed inland, because they would not have the competition of cattle coming in by sea. It was clear that there was no possibility of contaminating cattle in the country by those brought into seaport towns; and, therefore, the former were sufficiently protected. But the hon. Gentleman objected to imported cattle being moved to a distance of six miles for slaughter. He would, however, remind him that, by one of the exceptions already objected, home cattle could be carried about the country to a distance of six miles for the purpose of slaughter; there was no objection to bringing an animal a distance of six miles for breeding purposes; and calves could be moved twenty miles from the cow. This being so, the first thing which would occur to one was, that imported cattle might be moved to a distance of six miles for slaughter; but this was what the hon. Member for Northampton objected to. The hon. Gentleman wanted to have a quarantine of twenty-five days established in the Metropolitan Cattle Market. He presumed the hon. Member and his friends regarded that market as an Augean stable, which it would take twenty-five days to clean. Nothing could be more ridiculous. Such was the condition in which the Me- tropolitan Cattle Market was kept, that he believed it to be one of the cleanest places to be found in the metropolis. ["Hear!'] The hon. Gentleman who cried "hear!" must not know that market. The first question to be considered was this—what was the nature of the London cattle trade? The sales in the Metropolitan Cattle Market amounted to something like 7,000 or 8,000 head of cattle, and yet the metropolis was suffering from a scarcity in the meat supply. He believed that the metropolis and other large towns had a right to expect freedom in the importation of cattle brought by sea for the purpose of affording some alleviation of the embarrassments to which the prohibition of the movement of cattle in the interior of the country would necessarily give rise, and the importation by sea, large as it was at the present moment, must inevitably increase as soon as the inland supplies fall off, or were altogether withdrawn. A trade of such magnitude necessitated preparations upon a corresponding scale. Landing-places, markets, slaughterhouse—all should be proportioned to the extent of the traffic; and it was not to be supposed that an established industry like that of the meat supply to London was all in one day to be overturned and re-created. The hon. Member said he had only seen four places where cattle were actually imported into the metropolis; but some strange confusion appeared to exist in his mind between the metropolis and the port of London. The port of London began at Gravesend, and ended at Staines; and the arrangements for the supply of cattle throughout that district would, of necessity, be somewhat complicated. But confining their attention to the metropolis, the hon. Member it seemed had got a project which enabled him utterly to disregard and supersede the course of the trade for years past. The hon. Member had met some old man or old woman who had given him a plan and project. The hon. Member, in his capacity of projector, became therefore one of those dangerous and often deceptive persons against whom it was necessary to be upon one's guard. He had occupied three quarters of an hour in going through the details of his project, just as any projector would do in a Committee-room upstairs, endeavouring to persuade hon. Members that he had got a good project which would benefit everybody but the inventor himself. Unfortunately, the hon. Member wished to back up his project with what amounted to compulsory legislation, imposing however a severe tax and great inconvenience upon a large branch of industry for the benefit of this Mr. Odham. What guarantee was there that, if everybody were compelled to go to his place, he would give it to the metropolis at a reasonable price? The hon. Member for Northamptonshire was not authorized to negotiate on his behalf. [Mr. HUNT: You have got power under the Act to take lands.] The hon. Member, if he entered into that question, would get into great difficulties. Mr. Odham's land, moreover, lay not in the metropolis, but in Essex. Of course, everybody between Gravesend and London could point to a great many acres of land and say, "These are at the disposal of the metropolis, to carry on all the industry which is now carried on in London." But before the House could legislate upon the subject, possession of the land must first be acquired, and an Act passed regulating the tolls. It must be seen, moreover, that everybody obtained the same right of use and access upon proper and recognized conditions. The hon. Member put nothing in effect more than a sheet of paper before the House, and were they to proceed upon the mere scheme of a projector, anxious to turn his land to account? He had land which he could not use, petroleum casks without any oil in them; and he said to the hon. Member for Northamptonshire, "Bring my sheds and my petroleum casks before the House and I will undertake to supply all the wants of the metropolis." Even in connection with the Cattle Plague Bill, this was hardly a proposition that ought to have been brought before the House. Into the conversations held with Messrs. Honks and Hicks he would not enter. Many conversations had been preserved, both of the living and the dead, but conversations more uninteresting than those held by the hon. Member he had never heard. He should be sorry if the task of annotation fell to his lot, for certainly they were anything but instructive. All those Gentlemen, of course, held particular opinions and views; but he was not there to deal with private theories. What he looked at was the general benefit and the interests of great and established branches of industry. The hon. Member would not let cattle be driven six miles through the metropolis; but he would let them be driven six miles to a slaughterhouse in the country, though the dan- ger there was infinitely greater. What could possibly be infected in London except the cowhouses? and these were screened from the thoroughfares through which the animals should pass. [Mr. HUNT: We in the country are not allowed to drive cattle to market.] Yes; but to the slaughterhouse it was perfectly legitimate to drive them along narrow lanes separated only by a hedge from other animals grazing in the field. To conduct the meat trade of the metropolis, it was absolutely necessary that the beasts imported should be brought to market. It was idle to suppose that all the butchers of the metropolis would go down to the water-side and wait for animals to be landed there, buy them, have them slaughtered on the spot, and then wait the arrival and debarkation of fresh ones. Business could never be conducted on such principles as that. The cattle must be regularly brought to a place where buyers could see them, and where buyers could assemble; and in close proximity to which were regularly licensed slaughterhouses. A single animal sufficing for the consumption of a village might be slaughtered almost anywhere, but it was different with a great meat trade like that of London. Arrangements could never be made in the way suggested for slaughtering thousands of cattle from week to week, and he was prepared to go the length of saying not only that cattle imported should have free access to market, but that they should remain free within the limits of the metropolis. How else were the dairies to be restocked? This was a very serious question, for the price of milk already had gone up 25 per cent, and persons ought to be encouraged to restock their dairies at the earliest moment. The reproductive power of the 16,000 dairy cows in London in a short time would replace all the cattle destroyed by the plague. Was it to be laid down broadly that in the metropolis there was no longer to be any breeding of cattle? In the manufacture of beer millions of quarters of malt were consumed in London. After the manufacture of the beer there was, of course, a great quantity of grains, which was excellent cattle food, and the result was that cows could be maintained cheaper in London than in any other part of the kingdom. If the proposed clause was adopted, the people of London should look to Northamptonshire for milk, and everybody knew what wretched stuff Northamptonshire milk was. The London milk dealers complained that the Northamptonshire farmers watered the milk before they sent it to London, thus depriving the dealers of their just rights and privileges. The milk from the London cows was, on the contrary, very good, because cows in London dairies were well fed and well cared for. He could see no reason whatever that could justify the House in ruining the London dairy proprietors for the benefit of the Northamptonshire farmers. He strongly objected to the representatives of inland counties endeavouring to introduce into the Bill clauses calculated to serve their own constituencies and to injure the cattle trade of large seaport towns. If the clause now before the House was adopted, its effect would be of most serious inconvenience to all the inhabitants, and positive ruin to many of those engaged in the London cattle trade.

MR. PACKE

said, that it was true that the passing of the clause might injure some private interests, but they were not there to consider private interests, but were there to see what they could do to check the progress of the cattle plague. They all knew that the disease had been first imported into this country from abroad, and there was no better way of checking the spread of the disease than the adoption of the clause now before them, which would effectually prevent diseased cattle coming into the country from abroad. It was impossible by the adoption of any precaution to discover whether animals coming from abroad were sound or not. He had known cases in which the very best judges of cattle bought animals as sound which afterwards turned out to have been suffering from the plague at the time of their purchase into the country. Whether that interfered with the trade or not they knew very well that the safety of our whole herds depended upon it, and the farmers and graziers of the country were perfectly alive to that, and would do anything to prevent the importation of the disease into the country. Unless they did something to check the passage of the disease through the country they would do very little good at all.

MR. CRAWFORD

said, that the hon. Member who had just addressed the House spoke of the opponents of the clause as persons who supported private interests. He did not see how the interests of the three million of people who inhabited the metropolis could be called private interests. The hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt) prudently made Bristol one of the proposed exceptions to the working of the clause. He did this because he knew that there was a great cattle trade between Ireland and Bristol, and he hoped that by excepting Bristol from the working of the clause he would obtain the support of the Irish Members. Now he (Mr. Crawford) told the Irish Members that, if the clause was adopted, it would entirely destroy any trade in cattle now existing between Ireland and London. He feared, from the arguments on which the hon. Member for Northamptonshire based his views with reference to the importation of foreign cattle, that that gentleman was returning to the doctrine of protection. It was well known that the Jews, many of whom lived in the east of London, could not eat the flesh of animals unless it were dressed in accordance with their customs. He apprehended it would not be possible to set up an establishment in the proposed slaughtering place to suit them; but if this were not done, and the clause were carried, he thought it would be little less than tyranny. He trusted the Committee would deal with the matter in a liberal spirit, and not permit the importation of meat to be restricted in such a way as to deal harshly with any one class.

MR. BANKS STANHOPE

feared the last speaker had totally misapprehended the motive of those whom he opposed. They had no desire to stop the importation of live cattle to London. On the contrary, they wished to have as much foreign meat as possible, provided it could be brought without fear of infecting the cattle of this country afresh. The hon. Members for the metropolis seemed to consider the interests of the metropolis the major point, and the stoppage of the cattle plague the minor point. But that House had to consider, not whether or not they should stop the importation of foreign cattle, but what means they could devise to prevent the propagation of the disease. With respect to the first point, he believed they were agreed that the nearer the meat was brought to the consumer the easier the offal could be conveyed away, and the nearer a place for the disposal of the hides was to the market the better. The site in the neighbourhood of the Victoria Docks answered all these requirements most admirably. Near the large tract of land spoken of—and it was of little value— they had the Blackwall Railway and the North London Railway; and by these the meat could be taken to Newgate or White-chapel with remarkable ease. He had been told that two-thirds of the meat imported to London was consumed by the people living in the East End; and yet some hon. Gentlemen proposed to send the cattle six miles from the landing place, and, having there slaughtered the beasts, to carry the carcases back to Whitechapel. It would not do to dispose of the question by saying it was only for three weeks. As long as the rinderpest lasted the restrictions proposed would have to be continued, and it was a delusion to think the rinderpest would end in three weeks. Then with regard to the disposal of the offal. Within 400 yards of the Victoria Docks' site was a large manure factory which used up the blood and offal of 2,500 animals weekly. How much better would it be to remove the offal to this factory than to carry it through the heart of London to Bermondsey from Islington or the many little slaughterhouses in the City! He was told that the hides went to Bermondsey. If they took the foreign beasts to Copenhagen Fields, what was to become of the hides? Why, carts must be got to take them to Bermondsey, whereas if the cattle were slaughtered on the banks of the Thames the hides might be placed on barges and taken to Bermondsey close to the manufactories. He submitted he had proved his case. He thought he had never heard two gentlemen endeavour to do more mischief to their constituents than the two metropolitan Members who had addressed the House to-night. In spite of all the care of the inspectors, some diseased animals might slip through. They would, at all events, come over now and then with infected animals, and would carry with them the germs of the disease. Then what would become of the calves of these cows? They were to be sent into the country to be taken care of, and there was great danger that they would propagate the disease. The sheep, too, were to go back to the country again. There were instances of sheep carrying the infection; they were to go into the same market with the cattle; and there was cause for apprehension that the sheep would take the infection into the country with them. His hon. Friend and those who supported him did not wish to do anything either directly or indirectly to prejudice the admission of live cattle into the port of London, or to hinder the best and largest supply of meat for the metropolis.

MR. GRAVES

said, he had an Amendment to propose by way of rider to the clause.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, it would not be competent for the hon. Member to propose it at the present stage.

MR. GRAVES

said, he would postpone the Amendment until the proper moment. He wished, however, to explain that the port with which he was connected was peculiarly situated. The cattle market of Liverpool was in the jurisdiction of the county magistrates, being about 1,000 yards from the boundaries of the borough. The way from the point of landing was more a street than a highway, being lined with houses almost continuously. From the market, within the jurisdiction of the county magistrates, the cattle were brought back again within the jurisdiction of the local authorities, and were there slaughtered. That there was no danger from the free use of the cattle market might be inferred from the fact that the county magistrates, on the 29th of January, passed a resolution, permitting cattle to come within their jurisdiction to be sold, and returned to town for slaughter. He knew how difficult it was to make out a case for exception, but he based his appeal to the Committee upon the peculiar position of the trade, which would inevitably centre in Liverpool as soon as the present Bill passed. Liverpool must become the centre of supply of dead meat for the large manufacturing towns of Lancashire and the depot of the meat-producing districts of the north of England and Ireland. On these grounds he trusted that the Committee would not object to add a third exception to the two already admitted in the Bill.

MR. BARING

pointed out that the great difficulties attending the clause were demonstrated by the fact that it had been four times modified, and that the hon. Mover had intimated a probability that coming telegrams might show the necessity of still farther alterations. He acquitted the hon. Gentleman opposite who raised this question of any intention to raise the question of protection. He did not believe that any man would divide the interest of England and Ireland in this matter, and the effect of the clause was to throw the same obstructions in the way of the cattle trade with Ireland and foreign countries. Looking at the clause, he should say that it was both unnecessary and im- practicable. The pith of it was, that all beasts imported should go no further than one mile from the place of landing, and at the end of that mile they must be slaughtered. Now, in the Bill passed the other day on that subject it was enacted that all cattle brought by sea to any town or place should not be allowed to leave such town or place alive. Where, then, was the necessity for the present clause? Why, it rather weakened the effect of the clause which was already law, because it would cease to operate, together with the whole of the hon. Gentleman's Bill, on the 25th of March, whereas the Government measure would continue in operation till the 15th of April next. It was said that certain conveniences for the disposal of cattle would be erected below Blackwall, and that was the only suggestion which the hon. Member had to offer to explain how the cattle landed at the port of London could be killed within a mile of the spot of landing. The carrying out of the clause would be impracticable in the port of London, and intelligence might soon reach them that it would be equally impracticable in twenty or thirty other ports in the kingdom. Why should not beasts be allowed to be taken through the streets—of London, for instance—or Liverpool? Let them act in that matter like sensible men, dealing with infected places strictly, but not imposing vexatious or harassing restrictions without sufficient cause. The hon. Member wished to have Islington market thoroughly cleansed; but, if the clause passed, it would by no means secure that object, for the market would be still open for sheep and pigs. No animal could now leave the metropolis alive, and therefore it was impossible the plague could be spread by means of that market. The supply of beasts to this great metropolis was already affected to a serious extent by the stoppage of cattle transit by rail, and he was sure the Committee would, after all, feel that it was a question of some importance how more than 3,000,000 people were to be fed.

MR. AYRTON

said, he would not object to the second reading of the clause, but meant immediately afterwards to move an Amendment in it. If they did not pass the clause, there could be no movement of cattle at all in the streets of London. ["No!"] He maintained that, having already passed one Bill allowing such movement, if they now passed another Bill saying there was to be no such movement they would thereby repeal the provisions in the previous Act. It was necessary, therefore, now to pass some clause making exceptions to the general enactment; and, the hon. Member's clause being one of a sweeping character, he would propose an Amendment to modify it.

Motion agreed to.

Clause read a second time.

Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "highway," in line 3, to the word "that," in line 12, in order to insert the words— Within the limits of the metropolis or any borough, as defined by 'The Cattle Diseases Prevention Act, 1866,' subject to the provisions of Clause 17 of that Act, and"—(Mr. Ayrton,)—instead thereof.

MR. DALGLISH

wished the port of Glasgow to be excepted.

MR. AYBTON

said, that Glasgow would be dealt with as favourably by his proposal as any other large town.

MR. NEWDEGATE

asked, whether the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets meant, in speaking of the limits of the metropolis, to take in a radius of twelve miles from the General Post Office?

MR. AYRTON

replied that he meant the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Board of Works, not the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Police.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 102; Noes 156: Majority 54.

On Motion of Mr. GRAVES, Proviso— Provided also, that nothing herein contained shall interfere with the moving of sound beasts from the Docks of Liverpool to the Stanley Market and to the lairs on the road to the same, and back from the market to the borough for immediate slaughter, all such beasts being moved with a licence from the local authority, added to the clause.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, we should be in constant danger of having the plague renewed throughout the country, even though we should be so fortunate as to get rid of it for the present, unless some means were taken to prevent the intermixture in the markets adjoining the various ports of the cattle driven to them for sale with those imported from abroad. The danger of such intermixture was especially great now, owing to the ramifications of Continental railways extending in those districts in which the disease seemed regularly established. He wished, under these circumstances, to learn from the Government whether their attention would be directed to the subject with the view of introducing some permanent measure, which might contain provisions calculated to prevent this danger.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, that the law gave power to prevent the importation of cattle from any country in which the disease was known to exist. He could not at the present moment pledge the Government to bring in a permanent measure on this subject which should come into operation on the 25th of March next, though they might make some proposal for regulating the movement of cattle whether infected or not. He thought he might add that the House was hardly spending its time very usefully in legislating for so short a period.

VISCOUNT CRANBOURNE

concurred with the right hon. Gentleman so far as to admit that there had been a considerable waste of time that evening in discussing very trifling matters; but he warned him that he was losing a most valuable opportunity if he did not undertake to introduce such a measure as would guard this country against the recurrence of the cattle plague. In Prussia a perpetual war was maintained against the disease from one end of the year to the other; and now that railways brought us into constant communication with Hungary and other places which seemed to be permanent seats of the disease, it was absolutely necessary that the system of traffic in foreign cattle should be placed on a satisfactory footing, with a view to ward off, as far as possible, future danger.

SIR MATTHEW RIDLEY

said, he thought it most imperative that some steps should be taken to secure an inspection of vessels engaged in cattle traffic between this and foreign countries, particularly with a view of securing a free circulation of air through all parts of the vessel, plenty of room, and a sufficiency of provender. No cattle, moreover, ought to be allowed on deck. If he saw no sign from the Government of a desire to attain this object he should be disposed to blame them, and to charge the President of the Board of Trade with a remissness of duty.

Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill. [cl. 12.]

MR. BAINES

said, that the hon. Member for Northamptonshire had had nume- rous conferences with gentlemen engaged largely in the trade of hides and skins in the borough which he (Mr. Baines) had the honour to represent, as well as in other places; and he must say that the hon. Gentleman had not only met them in a most liberal manner, but the entire series of clauses now added to the Bill were entirely satisfactory to them.

Clause agreed to.

Clause (Disinfection and disposal of carcases and skins,)—(Mr. Graves,)—added to the Bill.

Clause (Issue and Renewal of orders and regulations of Council,)—(Viscount Cranbourne,)—added to the Bill.

Clause (Inspection of cowhouses and cattle-sheds in boroughs,)—{Mr. M'La-ren,)—added to the Bill.

MR. WALDEGRAVE-LESLIE

proposed to add at end of this clause a section placing the inspection of cowhouses, &c, and cattle-sheds in burghs and populous places in Scotland under the Commissioners appointed under the "Police and Improvement Scotland Act."

Motion agreed to: Section added to the clause.

Clause (Duration of Act). This Act shall be in force from the first until the twenty-fourth day of March 1866, both inclusive, and no longer.

Brought up; read the first and second time.

On Question, "That the clause be added to the Bill,"

VISCOUNT CRANBOURNE

was afraid when the Bill reached the other House with such a clause it would appear they had almost spent much of their time in vain. He hoped something would be done to make the Bill rather more worthy of all the pains they had taken with it.

MR. ACLAND

thought they had been utterly wasting their time if the Bill was only to continue in operation for three weeks. He had to-day received from several quarters the strongest expressions of opinion that some system should be adopted permanently to regulate cattle traffic in England. The Government had turned their attention to this point, but they were completely stopped by the course which had been taken on the other side.

MR. HUNT

said, he could understand the disappointment of hon. Gentlemen op- posite. He had been most strongly urged to limit the Act to the 25th of March. It certainly appeared to him to be the sense of the Committee that the Act should be temporary and that the Government should, between the present time and the 25th of March, give their attention to the subject and then bring in a Bill either continuing some of its provisions or substituting others for them.

MR. BARING

understood his hon. Friend opposite to hold the opinion that the necessities of farmers were such that it was essential that stock should move about the country as early as the 25th of March, and he proposed clauses carrying out that view, He had expected from his hon. Friend something more definite as to what degree of relaxation was necessary for the farming interest after the 25th of March.

MR. HUNT

said, he had brought in a Bill which was to continue in operation up to a certain time, and in the interval he hoped the Government would give their consideration to the subject. Between this and the 25th of March it would be quite possible to bring in a Bill to continue the provisions of this Act, or to improve upon them.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, the time of the House would probably be otherwise occupied, and hon. Gentlemen must trust to Orders in Council to continue any of the provisions of this Act.

SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE

hoped the Bill would be restricted to the 25th of March, and that the Government would in the meantime give the subject their attention. He was perfectly willing that power should be given to the Government to continue some of the provisions of the Bill; or, if that was not done, a short continuance Act might be introduced for the purpose.

MR. ACLAND

said, he doubted whether by the 24th of March the Bill could be carried out, and in some parts of the country the exceptions contained in the measure would be fatal to its whole object. In districts where there might be a great deal of infection, those on the spot should have the power of abolishing all the exceptions.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, he thought that the public would be disappointed if all the provisions of this Bill, which had been so carefully considered, should come to an end on the 24th of March. The subject was one which ought to be taken up and dealt with by the Home Office.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, he saw great difficulty in making any rule applicable to all the various circumstances of different parts of the country, and he considered it best to lay down some general rules, and leave it to the local authorities to adapt them to the different parts of the country.

MR. CRAUFURD

said, that as far as he knew, it was the unanimous opinion of Scotch Members that the clause should be adopted.

SIR JAMES FERGUSSON

said, that the hon. Member was rather mistaken on that point.

Question put, "That the clause be added to the Bill."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 50; Noes 73: Majority 23.

New clause (Licence, how to be obtained)—{Mr. Hunt,)—brought up, and read the first time.

SIR HARRY VERNEY

thought the clause gave too much power to parish officers. He was of opinion that it would be better to fix upon some particular officer in each parish, and charge him with the responsibility.

MR. ACLAND

thought it would be better to require no confirmation whatever of the statement of the owners.

MR. HUNT

said, he should have no objection to add the words, "Parish officers being ratepayers to a certain extent or being owners of cattle."

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, the plan adopted in Northumberland had worked well. There the declaration of the owner was countersigned by two tenant-farmers living in the neighbourhood, who certified that they themselves had seen the cattle and the premises where they were, that they were healthy, and that there was no disease within five miles of the place.

MR. HUNT

thought a plan which required neighbouring farmers to go on to premises to inspect cattle would be objectionable, as being likely to propagate infection.

MR. BARING

said, that some substantial person should be made responsible for the granting of these certificates, for the door would be open to gross fraud if the power were vested in any parish officer.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

said, that the system of elected overseers had worked well in Devonshire, which, however, might not be on all fours with other counties. He believed the best plan was to have certificates given by persons elected by farmers, and confirmed as far as might be by magistrates. The next best thing would be to leave the matter in the hands of the magistrates. If a man were elected for a totally different purpose, there was no security whatever, and the principle of popular election was not brought into play. He was sorry that the proposal to appoint overseers had been withdrawn.

SIR GEORGE GREY

thought the local authorities should be at liberty to take the course which they thought most efficient.

SIR HARRY VERNEY

suggested that the local authorities should appoint the parish officers.

MR. HUNT

accepted the suggestion, which was about the only one he had heard from the other side of the House.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, that in many townships there was only one occupier who could be the parish officer, and that person might possibly be interested in the cattle in question. He proposed an alteration in the clause in conformity with the suggestion of the hon. Baronet (Sir Harry Verney)—namely, to leave the appointment of "person or persons" to sign the certificate to the local authorities.

The clause was amended by substituting the words "such person or persons as shall be appointed by the local authority."

Clause, as amended, agreed, to, and added to the Bill.[cl. 13.]

New Clause (Disinfection of cattle pens and trucks of Railway Companies,)—(Sir George Grey,)—agreed to, and added to the Bill.[cl. 28 N.]

On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, clauses, adapting the provision of the Bill to Scotland, brought up, and agreed to.

New Clause (Duration of Act,)—(Mr. Hunt,)—directing that this Act shall have the same duration as "The Cattle Diseases Prevention Act, 1866,"brought up, and agreed to.

New Schedule added.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow; and to be printed. [BILL 32.]