§ (Mr. Dodson, Mr. William Edward Forster, Mr. Secretary Bruce.)
§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Clause 45 (Exception for railways, 1867, s. 23).
§ MR. M'COMBIEsaid, he wished to know whether Aberdeen cattle coming by sea would be allowed to be sent to the central market in the metropolis?
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, they would, though he could not inform the House in what part of the metropolis the central market would be established.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses 46 to 53, inclusive, agreed to.
§ Clause 54 (Determination and declaration by local authority as to pleuro-pneumonia).
§ MR. G. GREGORYsaid, he had an Amendment to propose, to the effect that the time at the expiration of which a place might be declared free from the disease of pleuro-pneumonia, after the last case, should be extended from ten days to two months, the former period being sometimes too short to allow the seeds of the disease to manifest themselves. He moved, in page 12, line 35, to leave out "ten days" and insert "two months."
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that the Government were prepared on this matter to accept the opinion of the representatives of the agricultural constituencies. They had put ten days in the Bill on the authority of Professors Simonds and Brown.
§ MR. J. HOWARDsaid, pleuro-pneumonia, which had caused five times as much loss as the rinderpest, might linger about a place for more than two months.
§ MR. M'COMBIEsaid, he would advocate the adoption of the period of two months.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he would accept the period of thirty days.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he was very glad that the right hon. Gentleman had taken thirty days, rather than ten days or sixty.
§ DR. BREWERsaid, the period of incubation of the disease was between thirteen and twenty-eight days, and the period of thirty days was a reasonable one.
§ MR. CARNEGIEsaid, that his clients looked on pleuro-pneumonia with greater dread than they looked on the cattle plague.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ DR. BREWERmoved, in line 35, to leave out "ten" and insert "thirty."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 55 agreed to
§ Clause 56 (Exposure for sale, transport by railway, &c, of diseased animals).
§ MR. MILLERsaid, in the absence of his hon. Colleague (Mr. M'Laren), he had to propose an Amendment in line 4, after the word "place," to insert "or sale yard, whether public or private." This emendation had. been proposed by the Town Council of the city he represented (Edinburgh).
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clauses 57 to 59, inclusive, agreed to.
§ Clause 60 (Purification of sheds, &c, of diseased animals, 1866. [I] s. 14).
§ MR. M'COMBIEproposed, in page 14, line 13, to insert after "shall" the words "at its own expense." His object was to insure disinfection being thorough, which he was afraid it would not be if the expense were charged on the owner of the premises. The inspectors would, in that case, be constantly annoyed and obstructed in enforcing the Act; but if charged on the local rate the expense would be trifling, and the inspector would be independent.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he understood the object of the Amendment to be to make it clear that the local authority paid all the expense under this clause. The clause, however, was so framed as to give to the local authority power to pay the expense, if it thought fit, and he thought that the matter had better be left to the discretion of the local authority.
§ SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERsaid, he thought that a great deal of carelessness was often shown by farmers them- 1530 selves, and he did not see why the local authority should be obliged to pay for it.
§ MR. J. HOWARDsaid, he thought that, as the slaughtering of diseased cattle was for the public advantage, the public ought to pay for it.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses 61 and 62 agreed to.
§ Clause 63 (Water and food on railways).
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he had an important alteration to propose. In common with all the Members of the House he was anxious that the Bill should be made the means of preventing the suffering which was often undergone by cattle in travelling by railway. Clauses having the same object had been introduced into former Bills, but the subject was a difficult one, and it was found that they did not work. He had at first thought it would be sufficient to enable the railway company to charge the expense of feeding and watering the cattle, and to make the beasts a lien for such charge. Several hon. Members had, however, told him that the clause ought to be made compulsory, and he preferred it in that shape. He had put himself in communication with the chairmen of the lines of railway principally concerned, and they had assented to the compulsory clause now framed. It provided, in the first place, that the railway companies should be obliged to find food and water at such railway stations as the Privy Council might direct. In the next place, they were obliged to give food and water to such cattle at those stations as they might be requested to give by the owners of such cattle, either by writing on the part of the consignors, or by word of mouth from the person in charge. It would be necessary to follow that clause by two provisions, one making the neglect or omission to provide food and' water a penal offence on the part of the companies, and another to meet the case of the consignors or the drover in charge not requesting the company to give food and water, in which event they also would be guilty of an offence. It was thought desirable that these offences should be limited to cases where the cattle were in transit for thirty hours and upwards. As the result of his inquiries on this subject, he found that cattle could travel longer 1531 without suffering than he had supposed. In America twenty-eight hours had been fixed upon as the term during which cattle could travel without food or water. He also understood that on short journeys it was very difficult to persuade the animals to take water in trucks, and while they were travelling. Mr. Thompson, who had taken great interest in this question, had told him that he had recently gone to some cattle that had been in a truck twenty-four hours, and he found that while in the truck they could not be persuaded to take water. He moved in Clause 63, page 15, to leave out from commencement to "then" inclusive, line 28, and insert—
Every Railway Company shall make provision, to the satisfaction of the Privy Council, for the supply of water and food to animals carried by the Company, the same to be supplied at such stations as the Privy Council direct, on the request in writing of the consignor of any animal carried, or on the request of any person in charge of any such animal, and.
§ SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERsaid, if he were convinced the clause would carry out what they all desired, he would not move the Amendment of which he had given notice, but he was by no means satisfied that the beasts would get either food or water under this clause. The railway companies were to be free from responsibility, unless there was a request from the consignor or the man in charge. So long as there was a certainty of their being re-paid, he did not see why it should not be compulsory on the companies to supply food and water, whether requested to do so or not. He saw that the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. M'Combie) appeared to take a different view, judging by the Amendment he had placed on the Paper, limiting the provision, as far as regarded fat cattle, to the case of animals conveyed on longer journeys than fifteen hours. Everyone knew that the hon. Member himself took every care of his beasts, and that they always reached the market in first-rate condition; but other persons were neither so prudent nor so humane. He intended to move, as an Amendment, in line 39, after "person," to insert—
And if any Company on any occasion fails to comply with this enactment, such Company shall on every such occasion be deemed guilty of an offence against this Act.
§ COLONEL CORBETTsaid, he doubted whether it would be possible to get a conviction under this clause against 1532 either the consignor or the man in charge. All depended upon the nature of the food upon which the cattle had been fed. Turnip-fed cattle would go a long time without taking water, while if they had been fed upon hay and dry meat, they would want it in much less time. Would there not be a difficulty in obtaining a conviction under such circumstances?
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that the clause was purposely framed to take any discretion out of the hands of the magistrates. It would be an offence if, after the cattle had been thirty hours in transit, a request was not made upon the railway company for food and water. The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals would be sure to see that the Act was carried out.
§ MR. PEASEstated that animals would not drink in trucks after a journey of twenty hours, although they would eat dry hay. This showed that they did not suffer from thirst.
§ MR. PELLsaid, that great difficulty would arise in laying down any rules for feeding and watering animals on. a journey, in consequence of the various droves not being put into trucks at the same hour. It was desirable above all things that the animals should be conveyed with as little delay as possible.
§ MR. CARNEGIEsaid, that unless it was the interest of the owners of the cattle to prosecute, in the event of the cattle not being properly fed and watered on their journey, he had no confidence that any prosecution would be undertaken. If the carrying out of this clause were left in the hands of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, he did not think it would be very successful.
§ COLONEL SYKESsaid, that if any animal, whether biped or quadruped, were kept for thirty hours without food, it must necessarily become exhausted, and the quality of its flesh as food must be greatly deteriorated. He should, therefore, support the Amendment.
§ MR. LIDDELLsaid, he was afraid that an animal in the state of suffering inseparable from its being conveyed in a railway truck would, in all probability, refuse food and water, even if placed before it during the journey.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, it was an easy matter to provide that the railway companies should supply water, but not 1533 so easy to lay down rules as to the points at which the animals should be un-trucked and water given them. This was an experimental clause, and if it did not answer something else could be framed.
§ MR. MILLERsaid, that in his opinion the railway companies would not find much difficulty in giving the cattle water at nearly every station. He begged the House to remember that lean cattle were conveyed by rail as well as fat ones, and that trains of cattle going from fair to fair were often delayed for a great number of hours without any person being in charge of them. Such cases as these ought to be considered.
§ MR. D. DALRYMPLEsaid, he thought that by riding the humanitarian hobby too hard we should bring about the very evil we desired to obviate. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman (the Vice President of the Council) would carry his proposition.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that if the hon. Baronet's (Sir Robert Anstruther's) Amendment were carried, a task would, be imposed on the Privy Council which that Department would find it extremely difficult to perform, while other persons would be relieved from a responsibility which they certainly ought to bear.
§ SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERsaid, he wished to impose a duty not on the Privy Council, but on the railway companies.
§ MR. TIPPINGsaid, that the railway companies were only common carriers, and ought not to be burdened with a responsibility which properly belonged to the owners of the property conveyed.
§ SIR SMITH CHILDsuggested that the Amendment should be amended by providing that the food and drink be supplied at such stations as the Privy Council direct.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
§
MR. W. E. FORSTER moved to add to the end of the clause the following words:—
If any Company on any occasion fails to comply with the requirements of this section, they shall, on every such occasion, be deemed guilty of an offence against the Act: If in the case of any animal such a request as aforesaid is not made so that the animal remains without a supply of water for thirty consecutive hours, the consignor and the person in charge of the animal shall each be deemed guilty of an offence against this Act.
§ Amendment agreed to.
1534MR. M. W. EIDLEYsaid, he wished to know why steamboats were excluded from the operation of the clause.
§ SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERagreed that there was much more need of legislating for steamboats than railways.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, it was difficult to meet the case of steamboats coming from foreign countries, because if certain provisions for the relief of suffering cattle were made obligatory, they would cease to come in British ships and be transferred to a foreign flag. In the case of Irish steamboats any regulations must be made obligatory at the port from which they sailed.
§ MR. M'COMBIEsaid, he could answer for the Aberdeen steamboats, on board which cattle for London were well supplied with water, hay, turnips, and other food.
§ MR. O'REILLY DEASEsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would endeavour to do something to meet the case of cattle coming from Ireland. The London and North-Western Company had a line of steamers which carried on an immense traffic. Great complaints were made as to the manner in which the cattle were treated. When they arrived at Holy-head they were put into the company's premises without food or water. They were afterwards put into trains and conveyed into the midland districts, still without food or water. He should like to see some Amendment introduced into the clause, with respect to steamers. The Committee were not now dealing with foreign boats, but with Dublin boats, and he trusted Irish Members would turn their attention to this grievance, which was a real and not a sentimental one.
§ MR. SERJEANT DOWSEsaid, he could fully confirm the statement. Pleuro-pneumonia was occasioned by the shameful way in which cattle were packed in the Irish steamers. He wished that the right hon. Gentleman would introduce a special clause on the subject into the Bill. The value of the cattle was reduced 10 per cent by this mode of transit. He had known cases in which cattle had been brought from Dublin to Peterborough without food or water, having been kept in the trucks fifty hours.
§ MR. J. HOWARDsaid, that the question was one entirely for Irish agriculturists.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the grievance was patent, but he doubted whether it would be possible in a Bill which was intended to apply to England and Scotland only, to make provision for the treatment of cattle in Ireland and on their embarkation to ports in Great Britain. He hoped the present measure would be followed next Session by an Irish Bill, in which the requisite provisions could be made. If, however, the hon. and learned Member for Londonderry (Mr. Serjeant Dowse) could devise a clause which would meet the ease of the carriage of cattle by steamboats, he should be glad to consider it on the Report.
§ MR. W. EGERTONsaid, he had heard that the Irish beasts were much more unruly than any other beasts, and that the Irish drovers were rather more harsh to their beasts than any other drovers.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 64 (Return of cases of disease among imported foreign animals).
§ MR. CORRANCE, in the absence of the hon. Member for South-east Norfolk (Mr. Reed), moved after "cattle plague" to insert "and sheep pox." The matter was of great importance, but he left it in the hands of the Committee, trusting that the right hon. Gentleman would give his opinion on the point.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that the question of the precautions to be taken against sheep pox had received the careful consideration of the Government. The conclusion at which they had arrived was that the powers they had already taken to isolate sheep were sufficient to enable them to deal with the matter. He therefore did not recommend the Committee to adopt the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member.
§ MR. CAWLEYsaid, he thought that compensation should be made in the event of the compulsory slaughter of sheep.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses 65 and 66 agreed to.
§ Clause 67 (Compensation on slaughter —1866, [I.] s. 12; 1867, s. 15).
§ MR. CAWLEYsaid, this clause and the postponed Clause No. 7 involved two questions of considerable importance, 1536 and it would be necessary for him to raise them both now, or else lose the opportunity of doing so. One proposal of which he had given notice, as to the more correct mode of raising the money required for compensation, related to a tax, and, consequently, could not be brought forward by a private Member. He was, however, at liberty to raise the question as to the amount of compensation, and who should pay it. It appeared to him that as the cattle plague was a national calamity, the compensation for animals slaughtered ought to be contributed by the country at large, and not by particular localities. The local authorities were very curiously defined. A borough was defined to be a town which had quarter sessions held within it, and the result was that the town of Bradford, which had no quarter sessions, was included within the county, and had to pay a contribution of £1,400 on an assessment of £508,000, while Leeds, having a court of quarter sessions, paid nothing at all. Many other instances of a similar character might be given, and they proved that the local authority, as provided in the Bill, could not be maintained on any principle of justice or equality. The Report which had been laid upon the table as to the amounts paid in different places showed the vast discrepancies between different counties, although it did not show fully the differences between towns. It would require a rate of something like 7s. 6d per head to pay for the loss of the cattle which had been slaughtered in Cheshire alone. Now the mode of meeting the difficulty of the case, which he should propose, was very simple. While the individual farmer who lost his cattle could not afford to bear the loss, the infliction caused by the disease, to which the owners of cattle generally were liable, ought, in his opinion, to be met by a system of mutual insurance. Whatever loss the disease had occasioned to particular persons, there could be no doubt that the price of meat had been greatly enhanced in consequence of the slaughter of cattle which it had brought about, so that cattle dealers in localities which had not been affected by it had been considerable gainers in the result. There was every reason, therefore, why a system of insurance might, with advantage, be resorted to. He would not give the full value of the cattle lost in each case, be- 1537 cause he did not wish to hold out any inducements which might prevent proper precautions being taken against disease; he had no desire, therefore, to go beyond the proportion mentioned in the Bill. A charge of 1s. per head per annum on cattle, and 1s. per annum on each ten sheep, in the shape of insurance, would, he thought, be found a good mode of meeting the case; and if a proposal of the kind were not adopted, he should move, at the proper time, that the compensation given be a general charge on the whole country. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving, in page 16, line 14, to leave out "local authority," and insert "there shall be paid."
§ MR. E. EGERTONsaid, while thanking the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council for the pains which had been bestowed in the preparation of the Bill, there was one portion of it with which he did not feel at all satisfied. He alluded to the provisions by which compensation was thrown on the local authority for that which was a public calamity. The total amount of compensation for which the country was liable was, he believed, £800,000; and for 33 per cent of that amount Cheshire was liable; and why, he should like to know, should the compensation for the 37,000 head of cattle which had been slaughtered in that county for the public good be thrown exclusively upon it, instead of being borne, as it ought to be, by the country at large?
§ DR. BREWERsaid, he wished to point out that the proposal for an insurance at 1s. a head had already been tried in a particular instance, and that it had produced in five years only£7,495, while the value of the cattle lost by pleuro-pneumonia alone was £16,925. It was clear, therefore, that the plan had not been successful. A proposition for assurance, at the rate of 2s. 6d. per head, would be entitled to more favourable consideration.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he wished to state in a few words why the Government could not adopt the Amendment of which the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Cawley) had given a sketch. It was true that the expenses connected with the cattle plague had not been paid according to principles of perfect equality, but the same might be said of any tax. The hon. Gentleman next stated that 1538 insurance was the most desirable principle, because the cattle plague was a matter which concerned the whole country. In like manner it might be said that the relief of pauperism was a matter which concerned the whole country, but, nevertheless, it was considered that a local system insured the most economical and efficient mode of raising and distributing the money. He could not agree with the hon. Gentleman that in respect to the cattle plague the future was likely to resemble the past, for everyone must allow that if cattle plague were to come into the country now, there would not be anything like the same percentage to pay for losses consequent on it, and that whereas it had been a question of pounds in the past, it would be only a question of pence in the future. The House must also consider the inconvenience of adapting the insurance principle to the whole of the country, for the machinery requisite to carry it out would be very extensive, and the money which would be raised by the plan of the hon. Gentleman would amount to more than £300,000 a year, and this to insure a fund for compensation when it was hoped that in future no necessity would arise for the payment of any compensation at all. With regard to Cheshire, all must have regretted to hear how much the farmers in that county suffered from the cattle plague; but that was a matter of the past, and did not affect the present Bill, the object of which was to make provision for the future.
MR. HENLEYsaid, the proposal made by the hon. Member (Mr. Cawley) wont further in principle than at first sight it appeared to do. It was impossible, if they were to take the whole area of the country for these kinds of demands, but that the same principle must be applied to the poor rate and every other burden. He was sorry to say that everything was tending to what was called a national rate. That was pressing on in every direction, and he did not wish to help it forward, for he believed that such a system would lead to very wasteful expenditure. He, therefore, could not give his assent to the proposed Amendment.
§ MR. M'COMBIEsaid, he entirely disapproved of the Amendment, the adoption of which would cost some of his constituents £100 a year.
§ MR. G. GREGORYsaid, he feared that if the local authorities had a common fund to resort to they would become lax in the performance of their duties. He must observe, too, that that would be a capitation tax, and not an ad valorem one, and that it would therefore bear unequally on the poor with their inferior cattle, and the rich with their highlybred animals.
§ MR. HIBBERTsaid, he considered it desirable to rely on the existing machinery for giving compensation, endeavouring to extend the area of rating so as to include many boroughs of a semi-rural character.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that the present question was the omission of the words "local authority," and there was no advantage in entering now upon the question what the local authority should be?
§ MR. CAWLEYsaid, that voluntary assistance failed because it was not national. When the cattle plague swept over a district the cattle and the assurance went together. His present purpose was served by the discussion that had taken place. The discussion could be renewed on a clause that had been postponed.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. G. GREGORYmoved, page 16, line 16, to leave out "twenty," and insert "thirty." The clause, he said, already provided that the compensation should not exceed one-half of the value of the animals, and as there were many animals worth £60, he did not think that £30 would be too high a figure to adopt as a maximum.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he did not attach much, importance to that point; but he should be prepared to adopt the Amendment if it should meet with the general approval of the Committee.
§ MR. DENTsaid, he thought £20 would be a sufficiently high sum for a maximum of compensation. The adoption of the Amendment would hold out an inducement to local valuers to rate cattle at an excessive amount.
§ MR. J. B. SMITHsaid, he must oppose the Amendment.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he would recommend that the Amendment should not be pressed, as it did not appear to 1540 meet with the approval of the agricultural Members.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. M'COMBIEmoved, page 16, line 17, to leave out "one-half," and insert "two-thirds." He had a long experience as chairman of the Aberdeen-shire Rinderpest Association. They sat weekly for nine months, and had the credit of being the first to stamp out the disease, and their system was followed throughout Britain. But although they gave liberal compensation they found people unwilling to give information of outbreaks of disease among their stock. It was to be expected that if they only offered a man one-half the value of his animals he would say to himself—"I will rather run the risk of the disease spreading than have them killed." But offer him three-fourths of the value for animals affected, and full value for sound ones which had been in contact, and there would be no temptation to conceal.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he did not think the alteration of the amount would produce the effect anticipated by the hon. Gentleman.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 68 (Compensation for the slaughter of cattle herded with diseased animals—1866, [I.] s. 15).
§ On the Motion of Mr. G. GREGORY, "thirty" was substituted for "twenty-five" in line 27.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses 69 to 72, inclusive, agreed to.
§ Clause 73 (Power for Council to make orders—1848, [II.] s. 4; 1866 [II.] s. 4).
§ MR. CAWLEY moved, in page 17, line 34, after "animals" to leave out to the end of line 38.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that the terms upon which compensation was to be made were merely defined, but not provided for, by the Bill. In the event of the cattle plague unfortunately breaking out again, the question of providing for compensation would have to be taken into consideration.
§ MR. PELLsaid, he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that at an early period of the cattle plague in this coun 1541 try cattle were slaughtered without any compensation being made to the owners.
§ MR. DENTsaid, that in that case the cattle must have been slaughtered without the authority of the Privy Council or of any of the recognized local authorities.
§ MR. CAWLEYsaid, he thought that the words of the clause would give the Privy Council power to apply the Act to any disease that could be called infectious.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he thought it would be advisable to retain the clause as it stood, but he would give the whole matter his attentive consideration before the bringing up of the Report.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
MR. W. E. FORSTER moved, in line 38, after "affected" to add—
And this section shall extend to horses and all ruminating animals not within the definition of animals in this Act.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses 74 to 86, inclusive, agreed to.
§ Clause 87 omitted.
§ Clause 88 (Expenses for compensation 1867, s. 33).
§
MR. W. E. FORSTER moved at end, to add—
Every order of a board of guardians for contributions of moneys, out of which any such expenditure as in this section mentioned is payable, shall state the amount in the pound of contribution required for such expenditure; and the overseers, on the receipt given to any ratepayer for poor rate, shall specify the amount (if any), collected in respect of such expenditure.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 89 agreed to.
§ Clause 90 (Application of balance un-appropriated).
§ SIR EDWARD BULLERsaid, he wished to call attention to the refusal to pay compensation in the county of Chester, on the ground that the appointment of an inspector was invalid, and that there existed between the 20th of February and 4th of March, 1866, no authority to slaughter cattle and to award compensation. He proposed an addition to the clause with reference to the disposal of any balance—that compensation should be given out of it for any cattle slaughtered by direction of an inspector, in order to prevent the spread of the disease, between 20th February and 1542 15th April, 1866, and for which no compensation had been given.
§ It being now ten minutes to Seven o'clock,
§ House resumed.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Tuesday next, at Two of the clock.