COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 14 August 1867)

§ LORD ROBERT MONTAGU
I wish to make a short statement with regard to 1517 the debate and division on this clause which occurred on Monday night. The expression of opinion on that occasion was so decided, and the minority was so large that the Government have felt that they could not pass the circumstance by without consideration. That minority contained the names of persons to whose judgment the Government has been accustomed in a great degree to defer. The whole minority, indeed, consisted of Members whose wishes the Government are always anxious to consult. It must be confessed that considerable difficulties prevented the acceptance of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Suffolk (Mr. Corrance). If it had been admitted into the Bill the Privy Council would have been placed under "a hard and fast" rule to slaughter all foreign animals at all times, whatever might be the circumstances of the country. If an emergency and distress for food were to arise, then the rule could not be relaxed. Yet Parliament in 1848, placed the power and consequent responsibility in the hands of the Privy Council, and refrained from determining it by an Act of the Legislature expressly in order to meet such a case, so that restrictions might be imposed whenever there was danger of disease, and relaxed whenever an emergency with regard to food should arise The Government felt, therefore, that they would not be justified in freeing themselves from the responsibility and in agreeing to bind themselves hand and foot for the future; yet they entertain a strong desire to meet the wishes of the minority, and, having considered the arguments which were used on Monday night, and perceived that the object which was conscientiously aimed at was the slaughter of all foreign animals at the ports of landing, they have determined to revoke the Order with reference to Harwich and Southampton, so that all cattle should be slaughtered at the ports of landing, and none allowed to leave those ports alive. The Bill, if carried, would only be in operation for a year, before which time Parliament would have to deal with the whole question. He, therefore, asked the Committee to allow the Bill to pass with all despatch, in order that it might become law this Session. The Consolidated Order was in type, but could not be issued before this Bill was passed. Unless the Bill was sent to the House of Lords to-morrow, it would be impossible that the Bill could be passed on Saturday.

COLONEL SYKES
said, he was glad to hear the determination that had been come to by the Government. The course taken was precisely that which he had been pressing on the Government, and which had been adopted by France, with the best results.

§ MR. CORRANCE
After the statement of the noble Lord, perhaps I may be permitted to say a few words upon the present views of Her Majesty's Government upon this clause. It seems to me, if I have perfectly comprehended their scope, that the present Orders which the Privy Council are about to issue under the authority of the Bill, are in exact accordance with the point embodied in the amended clause I submitted the other night—that they do make slaughter imperative; that they will define the ports; the time of doing so being simply limited by the limited duration of this Bill, say for one year. I can take no exception to this; indeed it seems to me that it is perhaps the wisest course. The provisions of this Bill are entirely provisional, and are not such as would be desirable to make permanent; and to meet the present case by the time specified, it will no doubt be in the power of the Government to deal in a more comprehensive manner with the question, and from the effect of the measure they now propose to adopt, they will gain some valuable experience of the operation of such law upon markets, prices, and their relation to produce of every class, for which the data are undoubtedly insufficient as yet. Had I been met by such a proposition as the one now moved I should not have pressed to a division the other night; nor, indeed, had I been aware that I should find myself directly opposed to the whole Government strength, would it have been the case. There has been some misapprehension as to this. By the statement now made by the right hon. Gentlemen these are removed; and, accepting the proposition, I can only express my satisfaction at the results. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the remainder of the Amendments proposed, from line 9, to the end of the clause; but, as the noble Lord said nothing concerning the sub-section with reference to quarantine, I shall therefore beg more particularly to call his attention to that point. The rest I am happy to leave in Government hands.

§ COLONEL NORTH
said, that the transit of foreign cattle had occasioned the greatest alarm in Oxfordshire, and he was much 1519 gratified at the announcement of the noble Lord. He had presented a number of Petitions from his own county on the subject, and all they asked for had now been granted. He only regretted that this step had not been taken before.

§ MR. M'LAREN
said, he was not at all surprised that the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes) whose county was one for the growth of cattle, and almost nothing else, should have been pleased with the idea of slaughtering all cattle at the port of landing, but it did not follow that because such a regulation would be good for Aberdeenshire, it would be good for every other part of the country, and he would suggest that words should be introduced into this clause, declaring that for the purposes of this Act, the City of Edinburgh and the port of Leith should be held to be one and the same place. In the Bill of last Session, of which the hon. Gentleman who was now the Secretary to the Treasury had charge, a clause to that effect was inserted.

MR. HENLEY
was sure the House and the country would hear with great satisfaction the statement made by his noble Friend on the part of the Government. There could be no doubt that so long as the risk existed, which seemed to be perpetually recurring by the introduction of animals from abroad not slaughtered at the ports of entry, it would be necessary to keep up the restrictions on the home trade of the country, and he believed those restrictions had a very great effect in keeping up the price of meat to consumers, and enormous inconvenience to all persons concerned in the trade, and the sooner they were relaxed the better. He could quite understand that the Government would not be willing to have their hands tied by an Act of Parliament; but in his own county everyone was most anxious that everything in reason should be done to prevent the recurrence of this disease. He heartily accepted the promise of the Government because it showed that the discussion which had taken place on this Bill had satisfied the Government that these measures should be taken. The present vexatious restrictions, as the noble Lord said, were about to be much lessened, and he hoped they would be entirely relaxed, for they applied not only to cattle, but to sheep.

§ MR. LIDDELL
, as one who had voted in the minority, cordially hailed the annoucement just made by the noble Lord. 1520 He entirely agreed with the views expressed by his right hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire. He lived in a part of the country which had suffered much loss and inconvenience from the restrictive measures adopted in regard to the home trade, farmers having to travel miles and miles to obtain passes for their cattle. He had voted for the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Suffolk, because he felt convinced that they could not safely or wisely relax the restrictions on the home trade till they adopted measures to prevent the spread of infection from the ports of entry. He hoped and believed the wise step now taken by the Government would be followed by another equally necessary—he meant the consolidation and simplification of all the Orders in Council relating to the cattle plague. He also thought the powers and duties of the Privy Council should be better defined. It was a very anomalous body. He had himself sat on a Committee to inquire into the constitution of that Board, but no one could define its limits or responsibility. The country generally, did not understand upon whom the responsibility for the acts of the Privy Council lay. The question was one of great importance, and he trusted that the Government would seriously consider the subject of the re-organization of this department of the public service.

§ COLONEL KINGSCOTE
expressed his thanks to the Government for meeting the views of the Western counties upon this subject. The question was of importance not only to the agriculturists but to the interests of the community generally. Two cases of cattle disease that had occurred recently near Bristol had been traced distinctly to foreign cattle which had come from London to Bristol. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) had so clearly expressed the views he himself entertained that he would not further trespass upon the attention of the Committee.

§ MR. READ
also wished to draw the attention of the noble Lord to the question so ably put by the hon. Member (Mr. Liddell). The whole system upon which the Privy Council worked was imperfect and incomplete. The Privy Council had no more right to deal with the cattle plague than the Board of Trade had to attempt the collection of agricultural statistics. We require to have some department of the Privy Council exclusively devoted to agriculture, so as to understand 1521 agricultural wants and interests, and to command the confidence of the farmers. He was glad to hear that this Bill was only intended to continue for a year, and he hoped that during the recess the noble Lord would take into consideration not only the proper method of dealing with the cattle plague, but also the mode in which the transit of cattle, both by land and sea, was conducted. He was glad to hear that the Privy Council intended to issue a Consolidated Older, which, he understood from the noble Lord, was to be published on Saturday, and which he sincerely hoped would remove from the home cattle trade the bulk of the present most vexatious restrictions.

§ MR. AYRTON
suggested the insertion, of words into the clause which should meet the views of the hon. Member for Edinburgh. (Mr. M'Laren). If no words were inserted in the clause extending the limits of the port of Leith to Edinburgh, the Act would not apply to the city. As the Bill now stood, the local authorities would have no power to enforce the provisions of the Act; and therefore he should be glad to hear from the noble Lord that it was his intention to bring up a clause which should give the local authorities power to secure places for the slaughter of cattle.

§ LORD ROBERT MONTAGU
said, he would take care that the views of the hon. Member for Edinburgh were met by the provisions of the Consolidated Order. As he had before stated, the Consolidated Order was already printed, and directly this Bill was agreed to by both Houses it would be promulgated. In general, the ports were too large. The port of London, for instance, was seventy miles long; That of Plymouth twenty-six. What was wanted was to diminish, rather than extend, the limits of the ports. The Privy Council was an ancient institution, formed for the purpose of assisting the Sovereign with advice; but Committees of the Privy Council devoted themselves to specific objects. In the present case, the Committee of Privy Council was not empowered to make arbitrary Orders, but only such as they were distinctly authorized to make under the Act of last Session.

§ MR. HUNT
said, that previous to the passing of the Act of last Session, the question of permitting cattle to pass from Leith to Edinburgh had been minutely gone into, when it was found that, owing to the road between those places running 1522 through market-gardens, there could not be the slightest danger in permitting cattle to be driven along it. From the peculiarity of Edinburgh there was no danger whatever of infection from the transit of cattle from the harbour into Edinburgh.

§ MR. CANDLISH
thought that if the port of Leith were to be made to include Edinburgh some difficulties might arise with the Customs authorities.

§ LORD ROBERT MONTAGU
said, he would propose the insertion of the following words in line 13, after the word "land:"—"and may define the limits of such port or ports for the purposes of this Act." He thought this Amendment would meet the case of Edinburgh and Leith.

§ MR. M'LAREN
thought the Amendment satisfactory.

§ MR. AYRTON
thought it would be still necessary to insert another clause, giving the local authorities power to carry into effect the provisions of the Act.

§ LORD ROBERT MONTAGU
proposed to add words to the clause in order to meet the views of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets, giving power to the local authorities to fit up places for the slaughter of cattle, and to charge for the use thereof such rates as should meet with the approval of the Privy Council, and providing that all expenses so incurred should be deemed expenses incurred for the purposes of this Act.

§ MR. AYRTON
pointed out that the words proposed by the noble Lord gave the local authorities no power to acquire lands for the purposes of the Act.

§ LORD ROBERT MONTAGU
said, perhaps it would be better for him to withdraw his Amendment, and to bring up a clause at the end of the Bill, to meet the hon. and learned Member's views.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHATTERTON)
brought up a new clause, embodying the suggestions of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets, giving the local authorities power to erect buildings for the slaughter of cattle and sale of cattle, and to acquire land for that purpose.

§ MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCE
protested 1523 against this clause as interfering with the privileges of the City of London in the management of local markets.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, that the clause seemed sufficiently general and comprehensive to meet the various circumstances of the case. The cattle disease was introduced into this country chiefly through the negligence of the Corporation of London, and he thought they were putting themselves into a very invidious position by standing in the way of any proposal for putting an end to the calamity under which the country had suffered during the last two years. Unless the Corporation of London were prepared to pay the whole expenses to which the country had been put in consequence of the introduction of the cattle plague, they should not obstruct the passing of this clause.

§ LORD ROBERT MONTAGU
said, that at this period of the Session it would be impossible to enter into the large question as to the creation of local markets, which must be considered upon its own merits. The establishment of separate markets would entail great expense, and must necessarily interfere with the vested rights of the City of London. He did not think that such interference would be justifiable without a full discussion of the subject. The clause had better be agreed to as it stood, and he would then move an addition to it which would protect the interests of the City of London.

§ LORD ROBERT MONTAGU
moved the addition of the following words:—"Provided that nothing in this Bill contained shall interfere with the rights of the City of London."

MR. HENLEY
said, that no one was more friendly to the rights of the City of London than he was; but he thought that the authorities were placing themselves in an invidious position by standing on their extreme rights in this matter. The Corporation had done nothing to check the disease during the last two years; and they now wished, in order to preserve to themselves a small pecuniary benefit, to continue a practice which was fraught with great danger to the agricultural interest of the country. He never knew a more striking illustration of the fable of "the dog in the manger." It had been stated by the noble Lord who had official information on the subject that it was impossible to guard against foreign cattle being infected. These cattle came 500 or 600 miles by land and sea, and then crossed the whole of England, 1524 and if they were to be admitted into the metropolitan markets, those markets would become the centres of infection; yet it was now proposed that they should be permitted to enter these markets in order that the Corporation might preserve their miserable tolls. If the City of London were to come forward and offer to provide places for the slaughter of these foreign cattle, he should be the last to wish to interfere with its privileges. He, however, did not see that while other persons and corporations had given up all their rights those of the City of London should alone be preserved intact.

MR. NEYILLE-GRENVILLE
said, he agreed that the Corporation would be acting very invidiously if they set up their rights in this instance. He hoped that the noble Lord would withdraw his Amendment, which was calculated to interfere with the interest of the general community.

§ MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCE
defended the City of London from the charge that had been brought against it of desiring to obstruct the passing of a measure which would tend to extirpate the cattle disease. All that they desired was that in the event of these new markets being established the control of them would be left in their hands. If the word "sale" were struck out of the clause, their objection would be removed.

§ MR. AYRTON
denied that the markets in the metropolis, with the exception of the one at Islington, were under the control of the Corporation, and pointed out that the markets at Whitechapel, Portland Place, Covent Garden, and elsewhere were under no such authority. The Islington market, no doubt, was within the rule of the Corporation; but every one knew that the Corporation constructed that market merely out of spite, and that the Corporation went to an enormous expense over it rather than take advantage of the market already established in a place convenient for the agricultural interest.

§ LORD ROBERT MONTAGU
thought that, after the clear expression of the opinion of the House, it would not be worth while to press the proviso.

§ MR. RUSSELL GURNEY
said, that nothing could be farther from the truth than the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Ayrton) with regard to the conduct of the Corporation in building the market at Islington. There really was not the slightest foundation for asserting that 1525 it was built from motives of spite: it was constructed at the special request of the Government, and at a great loss to the Corporation. As regarded the present clause, no obstacle would be put by the Corporation in the way of anything being done that was necessary for the prevention of the disease. But the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets knew very well what private interests, on the other side, were at work in this matter, and he was therefore not justified in coming down and attributing to the Corporation unworthy motives that had no foundation.

§ MR. AYRTON
admitted that this clause had been drawn up and placed in his hands by some of his constituents—wharfingers on the Thames—who were very much interested in it. With respect to the suggestion that the word "sale" should be omitted, it was only necessary to point out that if foreign cattle could not be slaughtered until they had been sold the object of the clause would be defeated by the proposed Amendment.

§ MR. READ
moved the following new clause:— When any animal is slaughtered by the order of the Inspector of the Privy Council, or the Inspector of any Local Authority, for the purpose of ascertaining the nature of any disease under which such animal may be labouring, the owner of such animal shall be compensated in the manner provided by the Cattle Diseases Prevention Act, 1866. It had often been discovered that the disease from which the animal slaughtered was suffering was not the cattle plague. In the absence of such a provision great injustice was often inflicted on the owners of cattle.

§ SIR J. CLARKE JERVOISE
said, he felt inclined to propose that an inspector who made such a mistake should be sent to the treadmill.

§ LORD ROBERT MONTAGU
said, that at present the inspectors had no authority to order the slaughter of any animals except those which were suffering from the cattle plague. He had, however, no objection to the clause, but it would be necessary to add to it words authorizing the inspectors to order the slaughter of any animal for the purpose of ascertaining the nature of any disease suspected to be cattle plague from which such animal may be suffering.