HC Deb 13 July 1869 vol 197 cc1755-74

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 90 (CLAUSE D. Application of balance unappropriated).

SIR EDWARD BULLER

rose to call attention to a case which had occurred in the Union of Market Drayton, in Staffordshire, in which compensation had been disallowed by the quarter sessions, on the ground that the inspector, Mr. Duff, by whose order cattle had been slaughtered, was, owing to some technical informality, not legally appointed, and that between the 20th of February and the 4th of March, 1866, there was no legal power committed to any inspector to order the slaughter of cattle. Those, he said, whose cattle had been slaughtered had surrendered them freely in obedience to the orders of a person whom they had every reason to believe had been duly appointed inspector, and he trusted that, under those circumstances, a mere legal informality would not be allowed to stand in the way of doing that which was simply an act of justice. There was at present in the possession of the quarter sessions the sum of £1,300, being the surplus of the amount collected to pay compensation for cattle slaughtered. It was objected that this £1,300 was the property of the rate-payers, and ought to be restored to them; but he could not admit that view, or that his Amendment would open the door to fraudulent applications. He had been particularly careful to guard against the latter danger. It was also said that it would be establishing a bad precedent, and that it was ex post facto legislation; but, on the contrary, he thought the worst principle they could establish was that when persons sacrificed their property for the public benefit, the House should not keep faith with them. With the purpose of carrying out the views he had expressed, he proposed, as an Amendment, to leave out in page 21, line 34, after the word "fit," all the words to the end of the clause, for the purpose of inserting the following words:— Dispose of such balance, or any part thereof, as follows:—(1.) They may apply such balance, or any part thereof, in compensation for cattle slaughtered by direction of an inspector between the twentieth day of February and the fifteenth day of April, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-six, in order to prevent the spread of cattle plague (for which cattle no compensation has been paid by any insurance office or company), although such inspector may, in relation to such slaughter, have acted outside the district for which he had been appointed inspector. (2.) They may carry such balance, or any part thereof, to the credit of the ordinary account of the local rate, to be applied for any of the purposes for which the local rate, when levied under any Act other than an Act repealed by this Act, is applicable.

SIR SMITH CHILD

, in supporting the Amendment, said, the farmers who had given up their cattle to be slaughtered believed that they were acting in strict obdience to the law, and therefore if some technical difficulty had been experienced in the way of granting that compensation, it was only reasonable that the local authorities should be enabled to compensate these persons for their losses out of the funds to which they had contributed. They did not ask that a new rate should be levied for the purpose, and if the Amendment was passed it would do no wrong to any one, but would do justice to those persons.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

said, he had placed an Amendment on the Notice Paper which, he thought, better explained the point at issue. It was as follows:— (1.) They may apply any part of such balance in compensation for cattle slaughtered between the passing of the Act twenty-ninth and thirtieth Victoria, chapter two, February twentieth, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-six, and the appointment of Inspectors under that Act, by direction of a person whom the owner of such cattle had reasonable ground to believe to be the authorized Inspector for the execution of the Act. In this case the farmers were induced to put their cattle to death in obedience to the directions of a man whom they had every reason to believe to be an authorized inspector to carry the Act of Parliament into execution. The question was whether that House ought not, in justice to cure the blot, if there were any blot in the law.

MR. M'COMBIE

said, Aberdeenshire was exactly in the same position as the district now alluded to, and if the Amendment were carried he must put in a claim for Aberdeenshire.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he was sorry to be obliged to oppose the Amendment. The effect of the particular clause in the Bill under consideration was that when there was an unappropriated balance of the fund raised for compensation, it should be returned to the ratepayers, and he did not see how the Committee would adopt any other enactment. There was no legal claim for the slaughter of these cattle, as they were killed by an inspector not authorized to kill by the Act of Parliament. He had received a letter from the chairman of the petty sessions, now chairman of quarter sessions, before which the case was considered, and after stating the particulars, the writer observed that the Amendment, if passed, would give an undue advantage to those persons whose cattle were killed by Mr. Duff over those whose cattle were killed by others before the Act of 1866 came into operation, and would cause great dissatisfaction among the rate-payers. With regard to this particular case he did not deny that it was a case of hardship, but it was only one among a vast number of other cases of hardship. Before the passing of the Act of 1866, a great number of cattle were slaughtered, amounting in value to something like £100,000 and if it were once admitted that there was a bonâ fide claim for compensation for cattle killed, not in accordance with the conditions of that Act, he did not know where they could stop.

COLONEL DYOTT

, as one of the ratepayers of Staffordshire, said, that he not only thought it fair that this Amendment should be carried, but he should think it very unfair if it were not. The whole mistake appeared to arise from the inspector being appointed to inspect Market Drayton Union instead of certain petty sessional divisions; but that mattered not to the owners of the cattle, who believed that their cattle were slaughtered according to law, and who had, therefore, a right to expect compensation.

MR. CARNEGIE

said, there were quite as many hard cases by cattle being allowed to die, as by cattle being killed, and if exceptions were to be made in one county it would be well to consider claims from all parts of the country at the same time.

MR. BRUCE

said, that as a matter of justice there could be no reason for ex- tending this favour to this limited class of persons while it was denied to others in the same situation whose cattle were destroyed previous to the date fixed in the Amendment.

MR. CAWLEY

considered that the Amendment should be adopted.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

said, that there was a clear distinction between the two dates mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bruce).

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, if they put these words into the Bill they could not in consistency oppose the claim of all those parties whose cattle were killed by order of quasi authorities prior to the passing of the Act of 1866. To do that would involve, according to one calculation which had been made, a cost of £100,000; and if it was desirable to pay this large compensation it should be done by special legislation and not by interfering with the provisions of the present Act.

MR. J. B. SMITH

said, the clause only applied in cases where there was an unappropriated balance, and this made all the difference.

SIR EDWARD BULLER

said, he would withdraw his Amendment and adopt that of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles Adderley). He had no affection for the words of his own Amendment; they were supplied to him by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Forster).

MR. W. E. FORSTER

rose to explain. He must not be held responsible for the Amendment of the hon. Baronet. He simply allowed the Government draftsman to draw the Amendment, in order that the discussion might be taken upon words ranged in proper legal form.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, In page 21, line 34, after the word "fit," to insert the words "apply any part of such balance in compensation for cattle slaughtered between the passing of the Act twenty-ninth and thirtieth Victoria, chapter two, February twentieth, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-six, and the appointment of Inspectors under that Act, by direction of a person whom the owner of such cattle had reasonable ground to believe to be the authorized Inspector for the execution of the Act."—(Sir Charles Adderley.)

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

The Committee divided:—Ayes 97; Noes 80: Majority 17.

MAJOR WALKER

moved, at the end of the Amendment last carried to add—"Or they may return such balance to the original contributors." Where a fund was raised for a special purpose, it was desirable that the money should be returned to the original contributors. His Amendment only gave permission to the local authorities, if they thought it desirable and convenient, to return the balance to the contributors.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, if the local authorities tried to put the Amendment in force they would be defeated by the circumstances of the case. The rate-payers might very fairly be considered the representatives of the contributors of three or four years ago.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 91 omitted.

Clauses 92 to 95, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 96 (Mortgage of rates in certain cases. 1866 (I.) s. 22).

MR. J. B. SMITH

said, this clause raised the whole question of rate-paying, and he would, therefore, move that it be omitted. It was much to be regretted that the House had legislated on this subject before they had thoroughly discussed the principles of the Bill. The arrangements respecting the prevention of the spread of disease had indeed been carefully discussed; but, unfortunately, there had been no debate on the principle by which money was to be raised for compensation. The Bill, of 1866, originally contained a provision that all boroughs in England and Scotland should be exempt from the payment of county compensation, and that principle was a just one, inasmuch as boroughs were consumers and not producers of cattle; but the justice of the principle was lost sight of in the progress of the Bill through Parliament, and a clause was inserted providing that boroughs, having a court of quarter sessions, should only be obliged to compensate for animals slaughtered within their own areas, but that boroughs which had no quarter sessions should be liable to pay compensation for any cattle which might be slaughtered within the county. That was a most absurd distinction, which was founded upon no principle, and it was perpetuated in the Bill now before the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman made this difference between the old Acts and the present Bill, that he proposed that compensation should never exceed a rate of 9d. in the pound, and that when it reached that amount a rate in aid should be granted. Cheshire, which the cattle plague visited more severely than any other county, lost 38,000 cattle, for which no compensation was paid, and subsequently to the passing of the Act, it lost 25,000 cattle, which were compulsorily slaughtered to prevent the spread of the disease. It was estimated at the time of the cattle plague that the fortunate holders of healthy cattle received a profit of £35,000,000 sterling by the increased value given to their cattle. They were the parties, therefore, who ought to have paid for the slaughter of the cattle that were killed to keep them in health. But it appeared that several counties in England paid no compensation whatever. The sum paid for compensation in all the counties in England was £630,000, of which no less than £249,000 was contributed by Cheshire alone. These figures were given in a Parliamentary Return, dated 7th of June, 1869, which also showed that six counties paid no compensation at all; that seventeen paid less than 1d. in the pound, ten less than 3d., and five less than 4d.; that six paid 6d., one 7½d., and one (Lincoln) 9½d. The boroughs in Cheshire having quarter sessions, exclusive of Chester, paid £1,835, whereas Salford, which lost only five cows, but which had no quarter sessions, paid £1,985, or more than all those boroughs put together. In like manner Preston, which lost two cows, had to pay £1,195, while Halifax, which lost none, had to pay £867. He might enumerate many other instances to show the unequal incidence of the law. His own borough, Stockport, or that part of it which was in Cheshire, was heavily taxed, and in addition it was estimated that the borough—assuming each inhabitant consumed ¾lb. of animal food in a week, which was very moderate—paid a tax of £13,000 on the enhanced price of food. During the time of the cotton famine Stockport had suffered great distress, and it had to borrow £64,000, while now it was proposed to saddle it with the payment of a large sum per annum for a period of thirty years for the purposes of compensation. Oldham, which had no quarter sessions, paid seventy times, and Salford, which had none, paid 100 times as much, as all the boroughs in England that had quarter sessions—

THE CHAIRMAN

said, he would remind the hon. Member that they were discussing Clause 96, which had relation to the mortgaging of rates, and he did not see the relevancy of the hon. Gentleman's present remarks to that clause.

MR. J. B. SMITH

said, this question was not discussed on the second reading; but he distinctly reserved to himself the right of discussing the question in Committee, and he now claimed that right.

THE CHAIRMAN

Then it is my duty distinctly to inform the hon. Gentleman that he cannot discuss the principle of the Bill on Clause 96.

MR. J. B. SMITH

Then I beg to move the omission of the clause.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he regretted that his hon. Friend was precluded by the forms of the House from giving expression to the views on the subject which he wished to lay before the Committee. If his hon. Friend's intention was to replace the local rate by a national rate, he did not think he would be in Order in making that proposal, inasmuch as the House had already asserted the principle of a local rate. Having assented to a local rate, he imagined that the Committee generally would be in favour of the principle of a rate-in-aid, and this clause was merely intended to give effect to that principle.

MR. J. B. SMITH

said, he wished that, instead of a limited area, as proposed, the whole of the unions of England should be called on to contribute to the payment of compensation.

EARL GROSVENOR

said, he should like to know whether the Committee were precluded from dealing with the question of the propriety of having a national rate in discussing the clause under consideration?

THE CHAIRMAN

replied in the affirmative. The clause related simply to the mortgage of local rates in certain cases.

SIR GEORGE JENKINSON

protested against the principle of the adoption of a national rate for the purpose of giving compensation for local losses. Each county ought, he thought, to be left to take care of itself.

MR. J. B. SMITH

Am I debarred from taking any other course than merely moving that the clause be negatived?

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member can either move that the clause be amended, or that it be negatived, with the view, if he thinks fit, of introducing new clauses on the Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 97 agreed to.

Clause 98 (Half-yearly accounts of compensation, 1867, s. 37).

MR. CAWLEY moved the omission of the words "in compensation for animals slaughtered," in order to insert the words "for the purposes of this Act," and with a view to the further omission of the words which made the accounts half-yearly instead of annual. He said his object was to equalize to some extent the objectionable part of the measure. As the Bill was drawn the rate-in-aid would not come into operation until 9d. in the pound was required. The Amendment he proposed had a twofold object: first, to make the rate-in-aid apply to the general expenses of the Act, as well as to the compensation for slaughtered cattle; and, second, to make it yearly instead of half-yearly. As the Bill stood, if one locality lost to the extent of 6d. in the pound in one half-year, and then succeeded in stamping out the disease, they would only have to pay 4½d. themselves, and they would raise the other 1½d. by a rate-in-aid; whereas another locality which lost 8d. in the pound, but which had the loss spread over a whole year, losing at the rate of 4d. in each six months, would have to pay the whole amount themselves, and would get no relief at all in the shape of a rate-in-aid.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he could not agree to the Amendment, so far as it sought to make the rate-in-aid available for all the purposes of the Act, as well as for compensation. He thought it was not advisable to make a rate-in-aid available for less than 9d. in the pound; and it would not be right to allow one locality to appeal to another for aid if the rate were only 3d. in the pound. As to the proposal to make the accounts annual, instead of half-yearly, he had no objection to accept that, on the understanding that if there were any sound objection to it on the part of the framers of the measure he should be at liberty to revert to the original provision on the Report of the Bill.

MR. J. B. SMITH

said, it was dangerous to legislate on the assumption that we should never have a 9d. rate. Had not the right hon. Gentleman himself spoken of a plague even more malignant than the cattle plague; and what would be our position if that visited us?

MR. W. E. FORSTER

, on re-consideration, must decline to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Cawley). The whole clause related merely to compensations.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 99 (Application to Poor Law Board by local authority for audit, 1867, s. 38).

MR. CAWLEY moved, in line 21, to leave out "the rate of nine pence," and insert "three pence." He should be glad if some modification could be made in the amount of the rate.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 100 agreed to.

Clause 101 (Power for Poor Law Board to make order of contribution, 1867, s. 40).

MR. J. B. SMITH

said, he objected altogether to the principle of a rate-in-aid. The owners of cattle should provide against accidents by insuring their property, just as the owners of horses and ships were obliged to do. But if any rate-in-aid was to be imposed it should be a rate on the whole country, or on the Poor Law Union as in Ireland.

MR. HIBBERT

said, he thought this clause very much depended on what was done with Clause 7. He considered the principle of a rate-in-aid very objectionable, and that it required great care on the part of the Committee. If a call was to be made upon any other district it ought to be made on a wider area.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he would be quite prepared to deal with Clause 7 when they came to it. In the meanwhile he might say that the definition of the word "borough," which would be adopted by the Government, would be "any municipal borough, or any borough having its own police."

MR. HIBBERT

observed that it was quite different to give power to the Poor Law Board to levy a rate-in-aid for cattle plague and for distress under the Poor Law Act. In the former case the cattle plague might extend so far as to render the adjoining district worse next year than that in the aid of which it had to contribute, whereas in the latter case distress under the law of Elizabeth was not at all likely to extend in that way.

COLONEL DYOTT

said, he thought it would be better to give the power to issue orders to the Privy Council instead of the Poor Law Board. It was so in other parts of the Bill.

COLONEL SYKES

was of opinion that cattle ought to be insured by their owners.

MR. CHADWICK

said, he thought this the most important clause of the Bill. A great deal depended on what meaning was attached to the words "adjoining districts." They might comprise four, five, or six counties. It would be better to postpone the clause, or to adopt the same rule as in Ireland.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, that the debate on the question whether there should be a rate-in-aid or not had very unexpectedly arisen. He did not wish to prevent that question from being fully considered, but it had taken him rather by surprise, because no Amendment had been put on the Paper on the subject. He trusted that the Committee would allow the remaining clause to be taken now, so that the question of the rate-in-aid might be discussed on the Report.

MR. HENLEY

said, he thought it worthy of consideration in the meantime whether the Privy Council was not the proper authority to act in the case. The Poor Law authorities had no connection with the local authorities of county or city districts, but only with the Poor Law Unions.

MR. DENT

said, that the right hon. Gentleman would, perhaps, consider whether if a rate-in-aid were adopted it should not be collected from the larger area of the whole of the country.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, that the rate-in-aid in Ireland extended over the whole of the country, and was not contingent upon its being more than 9d. in the pound. Before the Report he would consider the whole question of the rate-in-aid, and also the suggestion relative to the Privy Council.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 102 to 121, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 122 (Appointment of local authority in counties).

MR. MILLER moved, in page 30, line 2, leave out from "appointed," to "shall," line 6, and insert— In every county the tenants of agricultural subjects valued in the valuation roll in force for the time at fifty pounds, or upwards, and the proprietors of agricultural subjects valued in such valuation roll at fifty pounds and under one hundred pounds, and farming their own land, shall meet immediately after said meeting of Commissioners of Supply, and nominate a number of tenants of agricultural subjects valued in the valuation roll aforesaid at one hundred pounds or upwards, equal in number with the number nominated by the Commissioners of Supply, to act on the County Board; and the clerk shall give the requisite notice for such meeting as he does for the meeting of the Commissioners of Supply, and shall report to the meeting the number of persons nominated by said Commissioners of Supply and the clerk.

SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHER

, as the Lord Lieutenant of a Scotch county, begged to say that he had no objection to the Amendment.

MR. DYCE NICOL

said, he thought it would be highly desirable to obtain the advice and co-operation of the tenant-farmers in carrying out the objects which this measure sought to attain. He had grave doubts, however, whether such advice and co-operation could be attained by the machinery proposed in the Amendment.

MR. CRUM-EWING

said, there would be considerable difficulty in carrying out the Amendment without additional machinery.

MAJOR WALKER

said, that in the part of Scotland with which he was chiefly connected the principle on which this Amendment was based had been fully considered, and had been generally, if not unanimously, approved. He should, therefore, support the Amendment.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, there could be no objection to the object of this clause, which the hon. Member (Mr. Miller) proposed to insert, which was to give representation to the local tenantry. The only objection was to the machinery, and he would suggest that the hon. Member should withdraw his Amendment, and bring up the clause on the Report, during which time they could consider how the object which the hon. Member had in view could best be carried out.

MR. MILLER

said, he had no objection to act upon that suggestion.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, the object of the Government was to frame the Bill so that it should be as acceptable as possible to those who would have to work it.

SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE

said, there was no objection to the Amendment, provided the £100 qualification was adhered to, as persons below that qualification were not persons whom it would be desirable to have in such a body.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 123 to 128, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 7 (Definition of boroughs and other places, 1866 (I.) s. 3).

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, the Bill had been brought forward for two main objects—first, to put the foreign trade in a better position, and secondly to prevent, as far as possible, certain other diseases, besides cattle plague, and more especially home diseases, among cattle. It had not originally been their intention to make any alteration in the existing law with regard to the area of compensation or the mode of levying it, but when it was thought desirable that that should be a permanent Consolidation Bill, the objections to the present Act naturally assumed new force. There had been differences in our past legislation with regard to the definition of the words "local authorities." When the Act of 1866 had been introduced, every municipal borough was considered to be a borough; but, while the Bill was under discussion, an alteration was made which confined the application of the word to the comparatively few boroughs in which quarter sessions were held, leaving other boroughs, whether they happened to have corporations or not, to be dealt with as parts of counties. The result of that change had been great inequalities of taxation for the purposes of providing compensation for the slaughter of cattle, as between one kind of borough and another. Such inequalities would, he believed, never arise again, because he did not think it likely that the large sums hitherto paid would have to be paid in future, and that, as he had said before, instead of being a matter of pounds it would be a matter of pence. There could be no doubt at the same time that in places such as Birkenhead and Stock-port, which had to pay large sums in the shape of compensation, the law had been found to press very heavily. In considering the propriety of making a change in that law the Government had to take into account the suggestions which had been made by several hon. Members, the first of which was that of his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert) who had suggested that all boroughs should be abolished for the purposes of the Bill, while the area of rating should be the whole county. Then came the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds) which was to restore the Bill to the state in which the first Act upon that subject stood, and to allow every municipal borough to be considered a borough. Next, there was the suggestion of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird) framed with a view to meet the peculiar position of that town, which, though a Parliamentary borough was neither a quarter sessions borough nor a municipal borough. They had before them also the proposal of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Charley) to substitute for local rates a general cattle insurance; and there afterwards came the suggestion made by his hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. J. B. Smith) to re-place local rates by a national rate. Now, taking the last proposition first, he had to observe that in the opinion of the Government it was very desirable that the local authorities should have all the stimulus to economy and personal exertion which generally accompanied local responsibility. The question they had, then, to consider was, whether they should leave the Bill as it stood, or whether they should adopt some such proposal as that of the hon. Member for Oldham, and have no borough at all, or as that of the hon. Member for Stockton, and allow every municipal borough to be considered a borough under the Bill. There was this practical objection to the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, that it would be a very difficult and almost unknown proceeding to levy a county rate on boroughs that had for a long time had quarter sessions. The chief point to be kept in view was the efficiency of the Act, and, as the Committee was aware, municipal boroughs, especially those which were of any importance, and had not quarter sessions, generally speaking had police of their own. To have a double jurisdiction in the case of such a force was almost always attended with failure, and if the Act was to be worked efficiently, it would be better, he thought, that the carrying out of its provisions should be in trusted to the police of those boroughs rather than to the police of the county. As to places which had not turned themselves into corporations, they could hardly expect to obtain the advantages without undertaking the burdens of a corporation. But the object of the Act was to get the most efficient working, and therefore he should be inclined to adopt the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Laird) in addition to that of the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds). The result would be that every municipal corporation would be considered a borough for the purposes of this Act, together with every other place which was of sufficient importance and size to maintain a police force of its own.

MR. HIBBERT

said, he was satisfied, on the whole, with the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, and would not press the Amendment of which he had given notice.

MR. CHARLEY

thanked the right hon. Gentleman for adopting the Amendment of which he had originally given notice.

MR. DODDS

said, he hoped the Amendment would be unanimously adopted.

MR. READ

said, the practical effect of the Amendment would be to take almost every borough out of the counties. He apprehended, however, that in the years to come the compensation to be given would be small, and therefore he had no objection to the proposal. In point of principle, however, he strongly differed, for it was surely for the benefit of the towns that foreign cattle should be imported, and foreign cattle brought the cattle plague here, and yet in future the towns would pay next to nothing for stamping it out. Its introduction was not an act of Providence, it was an act of man; and if it ever came again the whole responsibility would rest upon the Privy Council.

MR. DODDS moved to omit the words "and which is not assessed to the county rate of any county by the justices of that county."

Amendment agreed to.

MR. LAIRD moved to insert the words "or which is a town or lace having its own police independent of the county."

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

MR. W. E. FORSTER moved the insertion of the following new clauses:—

And, on behalf of the Lord Advocate, two new clauses:—

Clauses agreed to.

MR. M'COMBIE moved, after Clause 14 to insert the following clause:— (Appointment of inspectors general.) The Privy Council shall appoint and keep appointed, after the passing of this Act, one or more inspectors general for England and Scotland separately, whose duty it shall be to see that the provisions of this Act, and all such Orders as the Privy Council may from time to time issue in virtue of the powers vested in them by this Act, are properly carried out by the local authorities; and such inspectors general shall make such reports to the Privy Council as the Privy Council from time to time require. The hon. Member said that he had had great experience in the working of the cattle plague regulations, having been chairman of the Aberdeenshire Rinderpest Association for nine months, and he was satisfied that it was absolutely necessary, for the efficient working of the Act, that an Inspector General should be appointed for Scotland. In Aberdeenshire the defended themselves by "stamping out" the disease immediately, wherever it appeared; but it was allowed to take its course in some neighbouring counties, and, as a consequence, all of the valuable herds in Forfarshire were almost entirely swept away; scarcely a beast was left alive. This was a great national loss. They were the finest herds of polled Angus in Britain, and they could not be replaced. At least, it would take many a long year before that was possible. Now, if there had been an Inspector General for Scotland, this loss might have been avoided. Without an Inspector General for Scotland, the people were helpless; for the police and the veterinary surgeons had very little weight where counties, or their local authorities were obstinate, or would not enforce the Act. He considered such an Inspector General abso- lutely necessary; for it would be impossible for one living in London to do justice to Scotland, as it would be at least a week before he could reach Scotland after he got intimation of his presence being required, and it would be impossible for him to remain there for any length of time.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he hoped his hon. Friend would not press the clause. The Privy Council would endeavour to carry out the object which he had in view. It was not desirable to have one Inspector for England and a separate one for Scotland, because the evidence and documents upon which the Inspector would have to rely, in dealing with the cattle plague, were all sent to the Privy Council Office, and would not be easily accessible to the Inspector in Scotland. When the Act became law, he promised to give the subject his serious consideration, with the view of carrying out the object of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire.

SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHER

said, that what was wanted was a permanent official for Scotland, who would be responsible for the carrying out of the provisions of the Act.

COLONEL SYKES

remarked that the object of the proposed clause was to have a person on the spot, to whom application could be made in ease the carrying out of the Act was neglected.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

stated that the Act, as it stood, gave the necessary power to have the Act properly and efficiently administered both in England and Scotland.

Clause negatived.

MR. READ

said, he had intended to move, after Clause 60, the following clause:— (Mode of carriage of animals to be subject to Privy Council directions.) Every vessel, steamboat, and railway shall provide such space and ventilation for each animal carried by them, and also shall undertake to forward such animal to the place to which it is consigned in such reasonable time and in such manner as the Privy Council may from time to time direct; but if the Vice President of the Council promised to take up the matter he would not persevere with his intention. He held, however, that it was essentially necessary that something of this sort should be done, as steamboats were very fruitful causes of cattle disease.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, that since the interesting debate on last Friday in reference to the clauses accepted by the railway companies, he had been looking more closely into the state of the cattle traffic by steamboats, and he had a Report on the subject drawn up by Professor Simmons, which he hoped would be in the hands of Members by Thursday or Friday morning. He thought that Report would convince the House that it would be hardly possible to pass a Bill of this kind without taking some power in reference to the cattle traffic by steamboats. He could only say that it was a difficult matter to determine how the evil complained of in connection with the steamboat traffic was to be stopped; but it was only justice to the owners of steamboats to say that he had no reason to suppose that they wished to expose the animals to unnecessary suffering, or to do anything which might propagate disease. They would be ready no doubt to avail themselves of any assistance which the Government might offer for making better regulations. He was not now in a position to propose any clause for the purpose in Committee; but he would give notice to-day or to-morrow of a short alteration in one of the clauses, giving power to the Privy Council to deal with the matter, and this alteration he would submit for consideration in bringing up the Report of the Bill.

MR. WINGFIELD BAKER moved, after Clause 61, to insert the following clause:— (Cleansing and disinfecting farm buildings.) Every local authority may, upon assent being first obtained by it of the Privy Council, require every occupier of any farm buildings in any way used for keeping, feeding, or rearing of animals, thoroughly to cleanse, ventilate, and disinfect the same in such manner as such local authority may from time to time direct. He thought it a most desirable object.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he was sorry he could not adopt the clause. They had already in the Schedule adopted stringent regulations for inspecting infected places, and they must be careful not to discredit the Act by over interference.

Clause negatived.

MR. READ moved a new clause after Clause 62— (Railway Companies to provide water in cattle lairs, &c.) Every Railway Company shall make provisions for a proper supply of water in all cattle lairs and sheep-pens at their stations, and shall make such provisions for watering cattle in transit as the Privy Council may from time to time direct. He thought the present system of conveying cattle by railroad was a cruelty and a disgrace, crowded as they too often were into a truck without any covering. He believed it would be perfectly easy to water cattle in transit, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would agree to the clause he had proposed.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

thought that after the clause which had been passed, the proposed clause was not wanted. He regretted that the hon. Member was not present on Friday, when the question was discussed; but he had already taken powers with regard to the watering of cattle at railway stations.

SIR GEORGE JENKINSON

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would allow the proposed clause to be inserted. It would be no hardship on railway companies if they were bound to provide a supply of water at stations at which, animals were embarked, and he should also like to see coverings provided for the trucks.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he hoped the Motion would not be pressed, because it was weak as compared with the clause that had been passed on this subject. It would be well not to overdo the thing, or public opinion, which was now in favour of legislation in favour of the animals, might undergo a change.

MR. READ

said, he would withdraw the clause, but trusted that the railway companies would have water troughs not only at their large stations, but at every station at which cattle were put into trucks.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. M'LAGAN moved the following clause:— (Cattle imported from Ireland.) From and after the passing of this Act, it shall be illegal to land any cattle at any port or place in Great Britain from any port or place in Ireland, unless such cattle have been examined at the port or place of embarkation in Ireland, and certified as not being affected with any contagious disease by an inspector duly appointed for that purpose by the Lord Lieutenant General and General Governor of Ireland, and unless such cattle so imported from Ireland shall be accompanied to Great Britain with such a certificate of health as aforesaid; which certificate, with the Schedule attached thereto, is to be handed by the captain of the importing vessel, or by his agent, or by the agent of the owner, to the officer of Her Majesty's Customs appointed to receive the same, before the cattle to which it relates are allowed to be landed at or in any port or place in Great Britain. He believed that if this prevented diseased cattle leaving Ireland it would have the effect of diminishing disease in Ireland, for it would lead to the slaughter of diseased cattle at once. The clause, therefore, would be beneficial to Ireland as well as to England.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he must appeal to the Committee. He should be sorry to check discussion on these matters; but unless they got the Bill through Committee that day, he did not know, in the present state of Public Business, when they should be able to accomplish that object; he trusted, therefore, that the Bill would be allowed to go through Committee that day, and any discussion which it might be thought desirable to have in reference to any point might be raised on the Report. It was not right to make regulations in an English Bill respecting what might happen in Ireland. Although they had taken no powers to regulate anything that was done in Ireland, they had taken very strong powers to check disease.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. PELL moved the following clause: (Return of cases of disease among imported foreign animals.) There shall be published once in every month, in the London Gazette, a return of the number of foreign animals imported into Great Britain which, upon inspection on landing within the last preceding month, have been found to be suffering from any infectious or contagious disorder, specifying the nature of the disorder, the port of entry at which, and the country from which such animals have arrived.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he would communicate with the Customs, but he did not apprehend there would be any difficulty in furnishing the Returns.

Clause agreed to.

Schedules 1 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.

Schedule 7,

DR. BREWER moved, after line 29, insert— Cattle affected with pleuro-pneumonia, and slaughtered under the provisions of this Act, shall not be sold in the fresh state, but only after being submitted to salting; and carcasses of animals slain with this disease sold for consumption in a fresh state shall subject the seller to the penalties provided for the infringement of the provisions of this Act. The offal of cattle affected with pleuro-pneumonia shall be treated with quick lime or other disinfectant. Other cattle in the same field or premises shall be placed under the supervision of the local authority, and subjected to such preventive measures to arrest the spread of the contagion as shall be directed by the Privy Council.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

remarked that this was a measure for checking disease in cattle, and not one for checking disease in men. The Nuisances Removal Act would, he believed, suffice to meet the case referred to in the Amendment.

DR. BREWER

said, he would withdraw the Amendment, and re-introduce it on the Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Preamble agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 212.]