Commons Sitting of 18 July 1878

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Poor Law Guardians, &c. [No. 297].
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution [July 17] reported—Contagious Diseases (Animals) [Salaries, Compensations, &c.]*.
Committee—Contagious Diseases (Animals) [204]—R. p.; Valuation of Lands (Scotland) Amendment (re-comm.) [205]—R. P. *
Committee—Report— Metropolitan Board of Works (Money) [251]; Turnpike Acts Continuance, &c. * [245].
Third Reading—Police Expenses Act Continuance* [256]; Corrib (Galway) River * [265], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  UNIVERSITY COMMISSION—THE MEDI- CAL PROFESSION.—QUESTION.
  DR. CAMERONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is a fact that during the last twelve years the Regius Professor of Medicine at Oxford has not delivered any course of lectures on medicine, and that the Clinical Professor of Medicine has not given any course of clinical instruction; and, whether the Government will lay before the House, Copies of the Evidence taken during the present year by the Oxford University Commissioners concerning the present state of the Medical Faculty of the University of Oxford, and the schemes for its amendment submitted to the Commissioners?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, Dr. Acland held
  1844
  the office referred to, and he was responsible to the University alone for the duties he was called upon to discharge. The Government had nothing to say on the subject. He believed the whole of the information the hon. Gentleman desired would be found in a Return which was presented to the House some years ago. He understood, however, that the University were entirely satisfied with the manner in which Dr. Acland performed his duties; and, speaking from his own personal knowledge for a great number of years, he never knew anyone who had more thoroughly devoted himself to the public service and the service of his profession than Dr. Acland had done. With regard to the hon. Member's Question as to evidence, he was informed that the Oxford University Commissioners had not yet come to any decision as to the publication of evidence; and, pending the decision to which they might come, the Government saw no reason to interfere in the matter.

GREENWICH HOSPITAL FUNDS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. P. A. TAYLORasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it is a fact that the age-pensions paid out of the Greenwich Hospital Funds to men above the age of 55 have for many months been withheld; and, if so, whether he can state the reason for such suspension, and when it is intended to resume their payment?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: There has been no suspension in the payments of any Greenwich Hospital age-pensions which have been awarded; but no new pensions have been yet given away since the 1st of January last. It was necessary to reduce the numbers in consequence of the rapid increase which has occurred in the annual charge for these pensions—namely, from £46,509 in 1866–7, to £78,231 in 1878–9. Any vacancies which now exist in the number of 7,500 will be immediately filled up. An Order in Council has now been obtained to limit the total number of pensions to be in force at any one time to 7,500—the original number contemplated in 1865 having been 5,000—and the combined amount to be received in Greenwich and other pensions to 2s. 6d. a-day.

PRISON DISCIPLINE (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  MR. J. COWENasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he has had his attention directed to the observations of Baron Dowse at the Armagh Assizes on Saturday last, when, before sentencing a prisoner, he asked the governor of the gaol whether the new rules which require a prisoner to lie on a plank for the first month were in force in Armagh Gaol, and whether that meant that the prisoner should sleep in his clothes for a month? Upon both questions being answered in the affirmative, Baron Dowse, who declared that Judges were not mere automatons, but had their feelings like other men, said he should give a much shorter sentence, for he considered the new rule nothing more nor less than torture; and, if he has not had other complaints of the new prison rules, and if he will take them into consideration with a view to their modification?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, the use of the plank was by no means new. It had been in use a great number of years. The only effect of the rule had been to make the system uniform in all prisons. He was sure there must be some mistake in the statement of the Judge, with whom he agreed that it would be torture to compel a man to sleep in his clothes for a month. Nothing of the kind occurred in England. Bedding was served out to prisoners, though they might have to sleep on planks. So far as Ireland was concerned, he asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland to make inquiries with regard to the gaol of Armagh, and he found there must be some mistake there.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked whether the Home Secretary would consider the suggestion that a hollow might be made in the planks?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Yes.

  RUSSIA AND TURKEY—THE WAR INDEMNITY.—QUESTION.
  MR. OTWAYasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Government of Russia have relinquished their demand on the Ottoman Government for a sum of about forty millions sterling as indemnity, according to a stipulation in the so-called preliminary Treaty of
  1846
  San Stefano; and, if not, whether Her Majesty's Government have taken any steps in consequence of this demand to safeguard the interests of numerous British subjects to whom the Revenues of Turkey have been already assigned as security for money due to them?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I think the best answer I can give to the hon. Gentleman is to refer him to what will be found in the Protocols when they come to be distributed. He will find in the despatch recently presented, written by my noble Friend (the Marquess of Salisbury), that he refers to this subject, and that he gives a short account of the declarations made by the Russian Plenipotentiaries and the English Plenipotentaries on this subject; and he concludes with these observations—
  "It results from those declarations that Turkey is not internationally bound, and cannot be compelled, to pay any portion of the sum named until the claims of all creditors anterior to the war are paid in full."
  The matter, however, will best be seen by examining the Protocols.
  MR. OTWAY: May I ask if the stipulations of the Treaty of San Stefano are in force as between Turkey and Russia, or as modified by the Treaty of Berlin?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I think the hon. Gentleman had better give Notice of the Question.

  ARMY—THE ARMY AND MILITIA RESERVES.—QUESTION.
  MAJOR NOLANasked the Secretary of State for War, If it is his intention, on the disembodiment of the Army and Militia Reserves, to award to the men a sum sufficient to keep them from want until they can re-enter their old employments?
  COLONEL LOYD LINDSAY, in reply, said, the Secretary of State for War was absent on duty at Wimbledon. On Monday he would make a statement as to the intentions of the Government with regard to the Reserves.

  PRISON DISCIPLINE—PERSONAL SEARCH.—QUESTIONS.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-

  1847
  ment, Whether the statement made by the Solicitor General on behalf of the Government in the debate respecting convict prison discipline on Friday night last, to the effect that the "indignities complained of were certainly not inflicted on anyone at present," was rightly understood by the House of Commons as an assurance that the unmentionable searching of the persons of prisoners, hitherto periodically practised in the male and female convict prisons, have ceased; whether this change has resulted from any orders given by the Secretary of State; and, if so, at what date those orders were given; and, if he can assure the House that such practices shall never be introduced into the county prisons, the control of which has now been assumed by the Government?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, he was sorry to have to state that experience had shown that it was sometimes necessary to carry out a strict search in order to defeat the ingenuity of unscrupulous prisoners. It was left to the Governors to see that in every possible way the proper rules as to decency were observed. He should like to mention that this was a question with regard to which evidence was being taken by the Commission now sitting. If the practice were open to objection he should be the first to step in and interfere with it.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he should make some inquiry on the subject next Session.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House any Correspondence that has passed between the county magistrates and himself in reference to their application for assistance in the discharge of their duties as visitors to the prisons, distinguishing cases in which an application has been made for clerical assistance from those in which the assistance of a lawyer or a medical man has been asked for?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, that he thought no good end would be gained by laying the Correspondence on the Table at present. He hoped that with a little experience the Justices would see more clearly what was the nature of their duties.

  WATER COMPANIES (METROPOLIS)— INCREASED RATES.—QUESTION.
  COLONEL NORTHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, If his attention has been called to the enormously increased charges of the Metropolitan Water Companies under certain alleged legal rights in their Acts of Parliament consequent on the re-assessment of property; and, whether the Government contemplate any Commission of Inquiry on the subject with the view of protecting the public against such charges, and making the supply of water and not rateable value the basis of payment?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The attention of the Government has recently been directed to this matter, which is one that undoubtedly requires consideration. I do not know whether it will be worth while going to the expense of appointing a Commission of Inquiry; but, as I said, it undoubtedly demands inquiry of some sort.

ARKLOW HARBOUR (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  MR. PARNELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the paragraphs in the Report of the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries on the Sea and Inland Fisheries of Ireland for 1877, referring to Arklow Harbour, especially to the recommendation therein—
  "That another year may not be allowed to pass without some determined efforts being made to render it safe and easy of access;''
  and, whether the Government will take steps, before the season of the year becomes too advanced, to prevent the loss of property and life that has hitherto occurred in rough weather owing to the unsafe character of the harbour?
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: My attention has been called to the subject, and I am fully alive to the importance of improving the harbour; but I would remind the hon. Member that the execution of improvement works would have been undertaken two years ago if the offer of the Government had been accepted. That offer—which they are prepared to renew—was to contribute one-half the expense by a public grant, and to advance, by way of loan, the remainder, on condition that repayment was guaranteed by the Lord of the

  1849
  Manor, the Wicklow Copper Mining Company, and the town of Wicklow. The Mining Company raised objections, and declined to accede to the terms, and the consequence has been that the Treasury have never been able to proceed with the Bill necessary for the purpose. The Mining Company are now taking the matter up themselves, and are in negotiation with the Public Works Loan Commissioners (England) for a loan of £12,000 or £13,000 under the Harbours and Passing Tolls Act; and if the Commissioners feel justified in granting a loan, though it is improbable that the harbour will be improved to the same extent as if the works had been carried out according to the original scheme, yet it is hoped that some measure of improvement may be effected.

  NAVY—NAVAL ARTILLERY VOLUN- TEERS.—QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN PIMasked, Whether an application for permission to form a Corps of Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers in the port of Lancaster has been declined by the Government; and, whether there be any objection to place the Correspondence that has passed between the applicants and the Admiralty on this subject upon the Table of the House?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The Admiralty have declined an application for permission to form a corps of Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers at Lancaster. There is no objection to lay upon the Table of the House the application in question with the Admiralty reply, which is addressed to the Admiral Superintendent of Naval Reserves. Other letters of the Correspondence, which are of a confidential character, cannot be produced.

  NAVY—THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL OF THE NAVY.—QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN PIMasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the allowance as Auditor of Prize Accounts of £100 a-year to the Accountant General of the Navy is or is not included in the salary of Mr. R. G. C. Hamilton, the newly appointed Accountant General; what amount of prize money has been distributed within the official service of the last Accountant General, or whether the auditorship of prize accounts has become a sinecure; and, whether it is intended to abolish such office?
  MR. W. H. SMITH, in reply, said, that the late Accountant General had received the allowance of £100 per annum as examiner of prize accounts and not as auditor, the accounts having been audited by the Controller and Auditor General since the retirement of Sir Richard Bromley in 1865. The allowance was not continued to the present Accountant General. The amount of prize-money distributed during Mr. Walker's tenure of office as Accountant General (financial years 1872–3 to 1877–8) was £84,632.

  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND) BILL.—QUESTION.
  MR. CHARLES LEWISasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, On what day he proposes to ask the House to go into Committee on the Intermediate Education (Ireland) Bill; and, if he will state at what (if any) stage of the Bill he will communicate to the House the names of the members of the proposed Board?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It is a little uncertain, depending upon other Business; but probably we shall go into Committee on this Bill on Thursday next. With regard to the names of the members of the proposed Board, I hope to communicate them before the Bill leaves this House.

THE JUDICIAL BODY (SCOTLAND).

  QUESTION.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he has noticed in the Scotch papers that one of the Judges, Lord Craighill, has by announcement in open court declined to proceed, because the Government have not filled up a vacant office; how he proposes to deal with the case; and whether the vacant Scotch offices, the abolition of which was under consideration, but respecting which no legislation has been pressed this Session, will be filled up or will be reserved for the consideration of Parliament?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: I am not quite certain that I understand the Question. There has been no undue delay in filling up the vacancy; but the future duties of the office have been under consideration. With regard to

  1851
  the last Question, I may say that the Government have had under consideration the abolition of certain Scotch offices, and although I cannot give a positive pledge, I hope to bring in a Bill on the subject next Session.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: Lord Craighill has, I believe, stated that in future he will not work after half-past 1, because an office has not been filled which, in his opinion, ought to be filled.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: That was the office of clerk, which really had only been vacant for a very short time, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has lost no time in filling up the vacancy. I do not believe that Lord Craighill will carry out his threat.

  CAPTAIN HOOPER'S LIFE-SAVING APPARATUS.—QUESTION.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the President of the Board of Trade, If he will lay upon the Table any Correspondence between the Board of Trade and Captain Singleton Hooper, R. N., as to his patent rocket for saving life at sea and a proposed official trial of it?
  VISCOUNT SANDON, in reply, said, he did not think the Correspondence to which the hon. Member referred was of sufficient public interest to justify the expense which would be incurred in printing it. He might, however, inform him that Captain Hooper was informed a few days ago that arrangements would be made by the Board of Trade for another trial of his rockets as soon as practicable. If the hon. Gentleman would like to see the Correspondence, he would be happy to show it to him, if he would call at the Board of Trade.

METROPOLIS—THE ISLINGTON AND DEPTFORD CATTLE MARKETS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked the honourable Alderman, the senior Member for the City of London, in reference to Clause 9, sub-section (1), of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill, What are the sums received for tolls, charges, and rents respectively, at the Islington Cattle Market and at the Foreign Cattle Market, Deptford, respectively?
  MR. ALDERMAN COTTON, in reply, said, that an hon. Member had given
  1852
  Notice of his intention to move for a Return relating to the subject, and he had no doubt the details would be readily given.

ARMY—DEPARTMENT OF CONTRACTS.

  QUESTION.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, To state whether any corrupt practices have been recently discovered in connection with the department of contracts under the Director of Contracts, or in any other branch of the War Office; and, if so, whether punishments of a suitable kind have been inflicted on the guilty parties?
  LORD EUSTACE CECIL: No, Sir; but if any such practices were discovered, I have no hesitation in saying that the offenders would receive severe punishment.

  PAROCHIAL CHARITIES (METROPOLIS) A ROYAL COMMISSION.—QUESTION.
  MR. FAWCETTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, as the Bill which he stated would be introduced either on Friday or Monday last for the appointment of a Commission to inquire into the Parochial Charities of the City of London has not been brought forward, he will inform the House what course the Government now propose to take?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: After consideration, the Government have come to the conclusion that it would be better not to introduce a Bill upon the subject, but to appoint a Royal Commission in the ordinary way, and that will be done, probably, in the course of next week.

  THE EASTERN QUESTION—THE MEDITERRANEAN FLEET—DETENTION OF BRITISH SEAMEN.—QUESTION.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGU: I hope the First Lord of the Admiralty will be able to give a denial to two telegrams in The Times this morning which I think ought not to go forth without denial if they are true—[Laughter]—I meant to say untrue. I allude to a telegram which states that a man-of-war's boat's crew, commanded by a lieutenant, were taken prisoners near Gallipoli by the Russians, and that another boat's crew being sent

  1853
  from a man-of-war to bring them back, were fired upon, and that two of the shots went through the boat. What I desire is to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he can contradict that statement?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The noble Lord has asked me to contradict a statement if true; but I am sure he does not really wish me to do so. There does appear to be some foundation for the statement in The Times, but the information at present received is very inadequate. Shortly before I came down to the House I received a telegram from Admiral Commerel to the following effect:—
  "Steamboat was looking for two officers of Swiftsure who were missing in her skiff; they had landed, and were being detained by Russians, but have since returned on board."
  The Swiftsure's boat was fired into, I believe; but we have no information what the circumstances were. Admiral Horn by has telegraphed to the Admiralty that he is inquiring into the matter, and will make a Report. Until we have such a Report it would be most unadvisable to make any definite statement on the subject.

  THE EASTERN QUESTION—THE CON- GRESS OF BERLIN.—QUESTION.
  SIR. WILFRID LAWSON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make any statement in this House similar to the statement which we are informed is to be made in "another place" concerning the labours of the Congress; and, if so, when?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I have no intention at the present moment to make any statement on the subject. If the hon. Baronet will repeat his Question to-morrow, I may be able to give an answer to it.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) [SALARIES, COMPENSATIONS, &c.]
  Resolution [July 17] reported and agreed to.
  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) BILL— [Lords]— [BILL 204.]
  (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 17th July.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  Cattle Plague.
  Clause 10 (Declaration of infected place in cattle plague by inspector).
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, the Amendment he had to propose on this clause—namely, in page 5, line 15, to leave out from "unless" to "expedient"—was not a very great one; but, at the same time, it was of considerable importance. He did not think it would lead to any lengthy discussion, because it seemed to him that the Secretary to the Treasury would be able readily to accept it. In fact, he should have thought that the omission of it was only a slip on the part of those who had drawn up this Bill. As the clause now stood, discretion was given to the Inspector who inspected the place infected with cattle plague to give similar notices to occupants of lands or buildings, any one of which lay within one mile of the place infected. For the past three or four days they had been engaged in a discussion as to whether it was safe to admit any discretion on the part of the Privy Council. Whether they were right or not, it was clear that the agricultural interest could not trust the Privy Council. Still less could they trust ordinary Inspectors. A good deal of evidence was given before the Committee as to the status and qualifications of these Inspectors. In the last Report of the Medical Department it was shown that one of these Inspectors in Essex was only in the receipt of 17s. per week, and that the greater part of this munificent salary was expended in trap-hire and expenses. Parliament had no right to expect from these men the superior qualifications which would entitle them to be intrusted with the discretion involved in the clause before the Committee. Further, he would say that no such discretion was needed. In any case, the district round about the place infected with cattle plague ought to be declared infected. He found in 1862, when cattle plague broke out in Yorkshire, the Veterinary Department gave

  1855
  evidence that a proper district was established, and that the movement of cattle had been ordered to be stopped immediately, yet the actual existence of the disease continued for three months. When, recently, the cattle plague broke out at Willesden, the local authorities immediately took every precaution which it was proposed in this clause to take; and in foreign countries, where, one would imagine, from the fears of Members who represented agricultural interests, the precautions were less than were necessary, it was the rule to make the districts larger than were proposed in this clause. In Prussia, whenever a district was infected, an infected area was declared of 13 miles. He thought a radius of one mile was the least that was consistent with safety. In all cases it ought to be imperative on the local Inspector to declare, not only the place actually infected, but that the district for one mile around was infected. It might be said that there were exceptional cases in which such a declaration would involve injustice. As to that, he might point out that, in the same clause, provision was made that the Inspector should report his proceedings immediately to the Privy Council, who should forthwith inquire into the correctness of the Inspector's declaration. If the Privy Council thought the declaration had been improperly made, they had the power to relieve the district from the force of this clause. Under those circumstances, there could be no harm in removing the discretion he proposed in his Amendment, and he trusted the Secretary to the Treasury would be able to accept it.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he would like to call the attention of the Committee to the reason why he should be unable to accept the proposal of the hon. Member for Birmingham. He would point out that the omission of the words proposed to be left out would make it imperative on Inspectors to serve a notice on every individual who happened to reside within the radius of a mile from the place the Inspector proposed to declare infected. He would ask the hon. Member what would be the effect if that took place in the centre of London? If cattle plague broke out in the crowded parts of the Metropolis, the obligation would rest on the Inspector of serving notices on all persons in the radius of a mile from the spot. It was
  1856
  quite impossible that he could get through his work in time to effect any practical purpose. So long as they left discretion to the Inspector, with power to censure him if he failed, they did all they had to do, and all they were aiming at by this clause. In such a case as the outbreak of cattle plague, he would take care that due notices were served; and although he might have power in rural districts, where there were few inhabitants, to serve notices on the adjoining district, it would never do to make it compulsory on the Inspector to serve notices throughout such a radius as this. He trusted the Committee would see that in leaving the discretion where it was, they had the same control over the Inspector as a subsequent clause would give, and they would be doing all they were aiming at with regard to publicity within the infected radius.
  MR. WHITWELLheld that the moment the real cattle plague or rinderpest was in existence in any locality it ought to be declared at once an infected district. He did not see that it was necessary in such a case as that, that every inhabitant should have notice; but there should be public notice posted up, as rapidly as possible, throughout the district, declaring that the place was an infected place. On a former occasion the local authority had power to declare that no cattle should come out of an infected district. Therefore, the hon. Member was only asking for reasonable security that whenever a district, whether of a mile or less, should be declared infected, the same consequences should follow as if notices had been served.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTdid not want this discussion to go further. He thought there was a great deal in what was said by the hon. Member for Birmingham. In cases of cattle plague, he thought no option should be left to the Inspector; but that he should be bound to give notice to the Privy Council, who might at once deal with the district if necessary.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYthought there was absolute necessity for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain). He thought, also, there should be further alteration of the clause. What was really wanted in these districts was that all movement of cattle should be stopped. And that

  1857
  purpose would be effectively achieved by serving these notices on all the parties connected with cattle within a radius of one mile. When first these regulations were made, all movements of cattle were stopped within a radius of one mile; and in order to make the regulations effective and sure, care was taken to place a policeman continually on the spot. He should propose that the clause, as amended, should read—
  "The Inspector shall serve notice on the owners or persons in charge of animals within one mile of the infected place."
  This would get over the difficulty in crowded places, such as the Metropolis, and in the larger boroughs. The Committee ought, in the first place, to accept the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member, and then to further amend the clause by causing notice to be served on the owners or persons in charge.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he ought to point out to the Committee that they had all the security they wanted. In the first place, they had the Inspectors of the Privy Council dealing with the disease, and then they had the local authority in counties. Suppose a case of cattle plague broke out either in the Metropolis or in a rural district, and it came to the knowledge of the Inspector. The Inspector could at once exercise his discretion as to whether it was cattle plague or not, and could serve notices as required on people near the place, and could do many of the things which were deemed necessary by the Privy Council to protect the district. On the other hand, if they altered the clause, what would be the effect? The Inspector would go to a place and would, in his judgment, think the disease had broken out, and then he would be occupied in serving notices on every owner of cattle, even if the suggestion of the hon. Member who last submitted an Amendment was adopted. But if the suggestion of the hon. Member for Birmingham were adopted, the Inspector would have to prepare and serve an enormous number of those notices upon all the inhabitants of the district, and all that time his communications with reference to the disease, his dealing with it, or any action he might take with regard to it, would be rendered subservient to the necessity of his serving those particular notices.
  1858
  Now, he thought that the Committee would see that as soon as the authority under the Bill came into action, it would be sufficient to enforce the delivering of any notices that might be required. The preliminary notices would have to be served by the Inspector, and any proceedings to follow upon that would be directed by the Privy Council, should they confirm the account of the disease. Nothing could be greater than the responsibility of the local authority, and of the Inspectors, in case of an outbreak of disease under that particular clause of the Bill; and he ventured to think that the alteration, as suggested, would impede rather than tend to secure the proper working of the clause.
  MR. SYNANcould not help thinking that the task imposed upon the Inspector by the Amendment would be not only impracticable, but impossible. Let them take a radius of a mile in the City of London. Every inhabitant in that radius would have to be served with a notice by the Inspector, which would take several days—in fact, a whole week. The Inspector was an ordinary man, and the task would be impossible. There ought to be confidence in the Inspectors. An hon. Member had urged that the Inspectors were not sufficiently paid, and, therefore, their duties were neglected; but the remedy for that was to pay them sufficiently, and to make the place worthy of competent men, so as to have competent men to fill it. In those cases where it was necessary to serve the notices he would serve them; but to serve them where they were unnecessary and impracticable would be to impede the action of the Bill, and, instead of stamping out disease, would produce the contrary effect.
  MR. CLARE READsaid, that the Committee must bear in mind that the duties would have to be performed by the Privy Council, and he did not think that they ought to depart from the Bill as it stood. On the other hand, he sympathized with the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain); because, whenever cattle plague broke out, he thought that notices ought to be given over a district to the extent of a mile radius. But, at the same time, he considered it very ridiculous that the occupiers of all buildings within a mile, who, perhaps, only kept a dog or a cat, should be informed of the outbreak

  1859
  of the cattle disease. He certainly thought that all the owners of cattle ought to be informed of such outbreak even in a town, and it was in all probability that the outbreak would take place in a town. Of late years all the outbreaks of cattle plague had taken place in cowsheds in seaport towns.
  MR. PEASEthought the Committee would agree with the Secretary to the Treasury that if the Amendment was carried, it would have an undesirable effect. Supposing that in Birmingham, or London, the cattle plague broke out, and the Inspector had to go forth and give these notices, he would be able to do nothing else. He actually would be taking the responsibility from those who ought to be looking after the disease—namely, the local authority or the Privy Council.
  MR. RODWELLinvited the attention of the hon. Member for Birmingham, with whom he concurred as to his views, to Clauses 11, 12, and 13 of the Bill, and would ask him whether the object he had in view was not met by those clauses? The Privy Council were responsible for carrying out those regulations; and he would ask the hon. Member whether the whole purpose of the Amendment was not answered by leaving the Privy Council to say what distance—in many cases it might be far more than a mile—should be covered by the Inspector?
  MR. MUNDELLAthought that the answer of the Secretary to the Treasury was sufficient as to the impracticability of the Inspector's giving notice in the case of the Metropolis, or any large town within the radius of a mile. But, at the same time, he thought that the suggestion of the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) was worthy of the attention of the Committee. They knew, from the evidence they had had before the Committee, how insidious the operation of the disease was, and how rapid was its progress. Before the Inspector could move the local authority or the Privy Council, the mischief might be done. Now, it seemed to him that the owners of cattle ought to be immediately warned, and that then the local authority and the Privy Council might be informed.
  MR. NEWDEGATEwished to know from the Secretary to the Treasury, whether there was any provision in the
  1860
  Bill, or whether it had been the practice of the Privy Council under any existing Act, to post some public notice upon some conspicuous place in the immediate locality giving information as to the outbreak of disease?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that, of course, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Birmingham would not meet the case of large towns; but he could not agree with the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease) in the opinion that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) was open to the same objections. He thought it would be quite possible for an Inspector to give notice to all persons within a mile who had cattle in their possession.
  MR. MUNTZquite agreed with the difficulties pointed out by the Secretary to the Treasury. But, at the same time, the matter was so important, and it was so essential that there should be no delay, that it appeared to him to be a question whether the Amendment of the hon. Member for Forfarshire might not be accepted. The facility with which disease was spread was so great that during the couple of hours which would be occupied in giving notice to the local authority, it might travel a distance of half-a-mile.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKthought that much ought not to be left to the Inspector. He had known instances where an Inspector was unable to tell whether a case was cattle plague or not, and had to obtain an Inspector from the Privy Council, with whom he had a consultation before he could decide as to the nature of the disease.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he wished to point out that he could have no object, and that the Government could have no other object in view, than the object advocated by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), and that was the best possible method of preventing the introduction of disease. But what he had before suggested to the Committee was what he still thought—namely, that that clause in the Bill gave them the very best security against disease. If they frittered away time by forcing the Inspector to serve a mass of notices, they would practically take up all the time of the Inspectors, which ought to be devoted to looking after disease. The In-

  1861
  spector would, of course, serve notices upon persons whose cattle were attacked; and he would, in his discretion, if he knew that there were cattle in the immediate neighbourhood, serve notices on those people, and he would also send information to the Privy Council. But he would remain on the spot to watch the disease, and to prevent that contact with other cattle of which hon. Members were so afraid. He must say, looking to the interests of the country and the proper working of that measure, that he believed they would get a far greater amount of security against the spread of disease by leaving the clause as it stood, than by frittering away the time of the Inspector in serving those notices.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that the sub-section made all lands and buildings within a mile of the place where the outbreak was to be deemed infected places. To demand that every land and building was to be declared infected he thought was very hard indeed. It was quite true that the decision of the Inspector was not binding; but, still, he was to do the best he could before somebody came down from the Privy Council to overrule him.
  MR. NEWDEGATEagain asked whether there was any power under the existing Act, or whether it had been the practice of the Privy Council, or the local authority, or the Inspectors, as a matter of duty, to post a notice of the existence of cattle plague in some public and conspicuous place in the immediate vicinity, or at the precise spot, of the outbreak? It had come within his knowledge that after an Inspector had been aware, or, at all events, had had very shrewd suspicions, that there was disease in the neighbourhood, no notice had been given to the public, and cattle had been allowed to be brought into immediate contiguity with the danger without having any warning of the risk to which they were exposing their cattle.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONapologized to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) for having forgotten to notice his question. He thought he might answer it in the affirmative, and say that where the Privy Council had been intrusted—a trust which up to the present time had been a limited one—with this power,
  1862
  they had given public notice on the spot where any disease existed. He would remind the hon. Member that at present the local authorities had had the direction of those matters; and, speaking for a number of local authorities, he should not like to say that that practice had not been generally followed.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, that the objections which had been taken by the Secretary to the Treasury to his Amendment, with regard to the difficulty it would raise in serving notices in populous places, were fatal to the Amendment as it stood; and he, therefore, would propose to withdraw it in favour of that proposed by the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay). But he could not agree with the hon. Baronet that the proposal made in the Bill was either satisfactory or sufficient; and he thought that the hon. Baronet's opinion was contradicted by that of the officers of the Department, and gentlemen whose evidence on the question had been before the House of Lords and before the Select Committee. The opinion of Professor Simonds and Professor Brown was that the establishment of districts in all cases of cattle disease was absolutely essential to the stamping out of disease; and they suggested that similar districts should be established in the case of pleuro-pneumonia and foot-and-mouth disease. And as to the general public, what was the object of the whole of this legislation? It had been suggested to Parliament by the feeling outside that the flexibility of the rules previously in force were fatal to the health of cattle districts; and it was that flexibility which the hon. Baronet proposed to continue. He would, therefore, be content to adopt the proposal of the hon. Member for Forfarshire.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. NEWDEGATEagreed with the hon. Member for Birmingham that something should be done; and he would ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he could not insert in the Bill some directions for the giving of these public notices?
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYproposed to amend the clause, by moving to leave out the words—
  "Unless under the circumstances this appears to him not to be expedient,''

  1863
  and to put in—
  "The Inspector shall serve a notice signed by him upon all owners or persons in charge of any animals which in his judgment are."
  He would remind the Committee that one of the great objects of the Bill was to take away discretion from individuals, and to make the rules with regard to disease as stringent as they were possible to be. Now, he thought that some hon. Members who had addressed the Committee did not quite understand what would follow upon the declaration of an Inspector. The hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease) thought it was to be some appeal to the local authorities of the district. He (Mr. J. W. Barclay) did not see that there was any such appeal. But that would not help matters very much, because it would require some considerable space of time to call the local authority together. What he trusted would occur was that the Inspector, when he had reason to believe in the existence of disease, should at once serve notices, or cause notices to be served, of the fact. According to the theory of the Bill, the Inspector was going to report to the Privy Council. But even if he did so by telegraph, the Privy Council Inspector could hardly come down before the space of two days, especially if the case was in Yorkshire, or Scotland. They must also recollect the sort of people with whom they had a to deal under the Bill. He had had good deal to do with these Inspectors, and out of 100 of them he had only found four or five were men whom he could depend upon to comprehend and act upon even the most explicit instructions before they had had some experience. He thought that if they were to take effective steps towards the extinction of disease, it was absolutely necessary that more stringent rules should be laid down as to what the Inspectors were to do in cases of disease breaking out.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 5, line 14, to leave out after the word "him," to the word "judgment," in line 17, inclusive, in order to insert the words "on the owners or persons in charge of any animals which in his judgment are."—(Mr. James Barclay.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. PEASEpointed out that the words proposed by his hon. Friend were not enough to carry out what his hon. Friend wanted; and wherever lands or buildings received these notices, they would become infected with cattle plague. Under this Amendment the places where notices ought to be served would be omitted, and places where no notices were required would receive them.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONcould not accept the Amendment, which appeared to him to be quite unnecessary. He was convinced that the clause, as it stood, gave the greatest possible security. On Report he was quite prepared to introduce words to make a public notice necessary; but beyond that they would only be weakening the powers of the Privy Council.
  MR. CHAPLINhoped the hon. Member would withdraw his Amendment. When he saw the Secretary to the Treasury and the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) agreeing on the same point, he considered the Committee would do well to leave the matter as it was.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYcould not consent to withdraw his Amendment. His object was to prevent the moving of cattle out of this area until it was declared by the Privy Council whether there was cattle plague there or not. That would, at the outside, only extend over two or three days, and such a restriction was better than the risk of spreading the disease by allowing the cattle to be moved. They must indicate the duties of the Inspectors distinctly.
  MR. MUNDELLAwas a little surprised that hon. Gentlemen opposite should be content with the Bill while, in many instances, it was lax. There was no difficulty about these notices. An Inspector could give notice to all within a mile in an hour. That was a precaution which appeared to him to be very necessary. This disease was easily spread. It could be spread by fodder, litter, and in many ways—clothes would carry it; but, if notice was given promptly, persons would avoid the affected spot. There was no difficulty about it that he could see, and the Amendment, he believed, was a good one.
  MR. M'LAGANexpressed his intention of voting for the Amendment; for, in cases of the disease breaking out, they could not have too prompt action,
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 167; Noes 68: Majority 99.—(Div. List, No. 223.)
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 11 (Declaration of infected place in cattle plague by Privy Council) agreed to.
  Clause 12 (Declaration of infected district in cattle plague) agreed to.
  Clause 13 (Alteration of infected place or district in cattle plague) agreed to.
  Clause 14 (Declaration of freedom from cattle plague) agreed to.
  Clause 15 (Slaughter by Privy Council in cattle plague and compensation out of public money).
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON moved, in page 6, line 19, after "plague," to insert "or being in a place affected with cattle plague." That was to cover what might, by some hon. Members, be supposed to be a slight omission.
  Amendment agreed to.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON moved, in page 6, after line 24, to insert the words—
  "(3.) The Privy Council shall, for animals slaughtered under this section, pay compensation as follows, out of money provided by Parliament;—(a.) Where the animal slaughtered was affected with cattle plague, the compensation shall be one-half of its value immediately before it became so affected, but so that the compensation do not in any such case exceed twenty pounds; (b.) In every other case the compensation shall be the value of the animal immediately before it was slaughtered, but so that the compensation do not in any case exceed forty pounds."
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he had two Amendments to this clause, which ought to be taken together. The first one was, in page 6, line 24, to leave out the words "Privy Council," and insert "local authority;" and the second Amendment was, in page 6, lines 25 and 26, to leave out the words "out of money provided by Parliament," and insert—
  "to be defrayed out of a special rate, to be assessed and levied in the nature of a capitation or poll-tax, according to the number of cattle possessed by any person within the county at the time of the slaughter."
  There was a great feeling prevalent
  1866
  among certain classes of people that this Bill was class legislation, and that it was simply intended to compensate the farmer for trade losses. He thought it most desirable, for the agriculturists and other classes, that this matter should be thrashed out, and that it should be shown that nothing of the nature of exceptionable legislation was contemplated. The two questions raised by his Amendment were these—whether, in the first place, any compensation could be claimed in the case of loss by disease? and, secondly, where the money should come from, and what the amount of it should be? He did not see how claims for compensation could be sustained. Farmers were not entitled to compensation, even under the provisions of the Bill, except in cases of cattle disease. A farmer might lose his ricks by fire without any fault of his own, or his standing crops in consequence of a heavy storm; but in neither of those cases was any claim ever attempted to be set up for compensation from the Government. Take the more analogous case of the recent disease amongst the horses of the General Omnibus Company. When that occurred, it was not pretended that the community at large had anything to do with the matter, or were to be saddled with the cost of compensation. In no other case was any claim for compensation set up or recognized by Parliament. In all the cases he had mentioned it was left to mutual insurance. The farmers were not entitled to exceptional advantages for matters which were of the nature of a visitation of Providence. It was said that their case was different, because the loss was inflicted and caused by the action of the Government with regard to cattle. Well, look at the Education Law. In that law the State imposed a duty on the public, who, instead of being compensated, had to bear the cost of education. A working man was compelled to withdraw his children from service to send them to school, and then he had to pay the school fees. In the case of mine owners, for the public advantage very considerable restrictions and expenditure had been put on the mine owners; but they never asked for any compensation, and probably, in the long run, the mine owners did not lose very much. The same thing applied to the farmers. Parliament had imposed obligations on individuals without compensating them; and in this

  1867
  case it was very doubtful whether compulsory slaughter was a fair claim for compensation. Cattle affected by the cattle plague must die, and they, therefore, were practically valueless; and as regarded the animals which were in contact with the diseased animals, they were deteriorated in value, and the farmer would make more of them by sending them to be slaughtered than by keeping them with the risk of the disease; and, therefore, no additional loss was made by the conditions imposed by the State. It was an interesting fact, in connection with that part of the question, that even under the present system, in which very considerable compensation was allowed, the value of the diseased beasts was more than the actual value of the animals at the time of slaughter. Professor Brown had said that it seemed to him no amount of compensation was sufficient to tempt a large number of men to give notice of disease, in consequence of the interference with their business which would necessarily result from their so doing. And on being asked whether he could suggest any alteration in the method of compensation so as to secure information as to disease? he replied that he should be disposed to claim full compensation in case of cattle plague, in the hope that he should induce a large number of people to report, many of whom, from their position, would not be able otherwise to bear their loss in consequence of want of capital. That answer pointed to the fact that an increase of compensation was likely to be needed to induce farmers to give notice of disease, and brought him to the point of his contention—that compensation, as such, could not be defended, and that the compensation to farmers was not an indemnity for losses sustained, but a reward for giving information necessary to check the progress of disease. If that were admitted, the question of amount would have to be settled upon quite a different consideration. If compensation were intended, they ought not to give more than the actual value of the animal at the time of slaughter; but if the money was to be given by way of reward, they would have to pay what was necessary to bring information, just as in cases where money was offered for the discovery of robbery or murder. He would be quite willing to vote what-
  1868
  ever amount might be thought necessary to obtain the required information. That this was the right view to be taken was confirmed by what he read in the Report of the Agricultural Commission of 1866, when that question was first discussed, and where he found the Society asked that payment should be made not as compensation but as remuneration for services performed and information given. Assuming that view to be correct—and he ventured to ask that it might be so accepted by hon. Members opposite—he came to the consideration of the source from which such remuneration was to be derived. He could not see why these rewards should be paid out of the taxation of the country, and why they should not form a charge distributed over the whole of those engaged in the trade. Surely those whose property had been protected should contribute towards the payment necessary to secure that protection? He could not put out of sight the argument of Mr. John Stuart Mill, which had been used the previous day—namely, that the farmers, as a whole, were recouped for their losses in connection with disease by the increased price which they necessarily obtained for their beasts which remained, and that if the supply were reduced and the price increased, it would result that some farmers would gain by the losses of their neighbours. He (Mr. Chamberlain) was of opinion that the loss should be spread over the whole of those who profited by the misfortunes of others; and he ventured to think that his contention had been admitted by the farmers themselves. Before the Act of 1869, there existed many considerable insurance societies for the purpose of insuring cattle against cattle plague; and the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) had said there had existed such a society in his county, in which property to the extent of £240,000 was insured, and that the amount was rapidly increasing. He would now ask the hon. Member, if he intended to take part in the debate, what had become of that society? He was afraid that its action had been stopped by the course adopted by the Government. He would also urge that his principle of insurance was admitted by the Bill itself. He had pointed out, yesterday, that such was the case in connection with the clause by which it was

  1869
  proposed to exclude the City of London from the charges imposed by the Metropolitan Board of Works; and he was justified in saying that the principle contained in the clause, that compensation should be borne by local rate, was, in itself, an admission of his contention. What could be more unfair—even taking for granted that the whole community should contribute—than that the particular district in which the plague broke out should not only suffer in consequence of the plague, but should, in addition, be charged with extra rates for the suppression of the disease? He only asked that the admission which he found in the Bill—that those who suffered loss should themselves bear the burden—might be carried to its logical conclusion; and that those who did not derive any profit from the trade should be relieved from the obligation of contributing to the insurance fund. He found that a proposal similar to that which he submitted was mentioned by the late hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Cawley) in the year 1869, when he suggested that a tax of 1s. per head should be levied on all cattle for the purpose of supplying compensation; but an objection which, in his opinion, was conclusive, was urged against this scheme at the time—namely, that the fixed rate would break down just at the time when it was wanted, while nobody could say the precise sum that would be sufficient. He proposed that a sum should be levied in the nature of a tax for just such an amount as might, at the time, be found to be necessary. It must not be supposed that such a principle could not be applied in practice, because they were told by Professor Müller that a precisely similar law was in force for the suppression of cattle disease in Prussia. In Prussia there was a census taken of the animals in a district, and a certain tax was levied on those animals from time to time as required, in order to establish a fund out of which compensation was made. And the laws in force in that country with regard to compulsory slaughter were precisely similar to the one then under discussion. He had a very great objection to the proposal contained in the Bill—that compensation in the case of cattle plague should be paid out of the Imperial funds—and he would repeat the words of Sir George Grey, which, to his mind, were conclusive, with re-
  1870
  gard to payments from the Consolidated Fund—
  "That the principle of applying the public funds to compensate private loss was an extremely dangerous one."
  He (Mr. Chamberlain) could conceive nothing more likely to lead to reckless expenditure than the use of the bottomless purse of the nation for such a purpose.
  Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment,
  In line 3, to leave out the words "out of money provided by Parliament," in order to insert the words "to be defrayed out of a special rate, to be assessed and levied in the nature of a capitation or poll-tax, according to the number of cattle possessed by any person within the county at the time of the slaughter."—(Mr. Chamberlain.)
  MR. CHAPLINwas bound to say that he regarded the facts adduced in illustration of the arguments to which they had just listened with feelings exactly opposite to those entertained by his hon. Friend (Mr. Chamberlain), who said that farmers were not entitled to compensation in case of the slaughter of their cattle.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I said I thought it would be exceedingly desirable to give them a reward for their information; but that they were not entitled to claim compensation.
  MR. CHAPLIN: How did the hon. Member proceed? He said if their stacks were struck by lightning they should not be compensated. Of course they would not be compensated for that which was a visitation of Providence; but the slaughter of cattle was perpetrated by Order of the Privy Council. But suppose proprietors had lost, say, their horses, not because they had been compulsorily slaughtered, but because they had been requisitioned for military purposes, would they not have been entitled to compensation for the loss sustained? Again, in the case of ships that went to the bottom, the hon. Member pointed out that the owners were not compensated for their loss. Of course they were not; but would the hon. Member say that if a ship was requisitioned for the purpose of conveying troops, that the owners were not entitled to compensation? He was obliged to say, with all respect to him, that he had never, in the whole course of his life, ever heard of anything so

  1871
  preposterous. The object of the measure was to stamp out disease, and to prevent its re-introduction from abroad. It was nothing less than a national question; and he could not understand how the hon. Member could think it just that farmers should be placed in the position of having their cattle slaughtered for the national good without receiving compensation. He (Mr. Chaplin) contended that, the object of the measure being a national one, the owners of slaughtered cattle should be compensated out of the national funds.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEdrew the attention of hon. Members opposite to the circumstance that many on his side of the House were far from thinking that the Bill would be likely to give the people cheaper meat. They were watching the passage of the measure too narrowly to let that be supposed. The hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) had spoken of cattle infected with cattle disease as if they were live cattle; but he wished to submit to him that, on the contrary, they were almost as certainly dead as if they had been slaughtered; and, therefore, that part of his argument fell to the ground.
  MR. CLARE READcontended that the Privy Council had let in the cattle plague. It was quite possible for the Privy Council not merely to stamp out, but to keep out, the disease by the adoption of sufficiently stringent measures. Foreign cattle were imported for the benefit of the public; therefore compensation ought to be paid by the State. It was said that this compensation was for the benefit of the farmers; but was it not the fact, in the case of cattle plague generally, that the cowkeepers were more interested than farmers? There had been, in the last outbreak, but one case of a bonâ fide farmer, and he lived in Lincolnshire, being compensated for the slaughter of his cattle. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) had said there was no precedent for compensation; but only a year or two ago they had passed the Destructive Insects Act, which said that crops in which the Colorado beetle was found should be destroyed, and the owner compensated out of the local rates. The cases were exactly similar. No doubt, a glandered horse could be killed without the owner receiving compensation; but nobody pretended that glan-
  1872
  ders was not indigenous, although it might have come from abroad some hundreds of years ago. What the hon. Member for Birmingham wished to do was to punish farmers and cowkeepers for having among their cattle a foreign disease for the importation of which they were in no wise responsible.
  MR. PEASEpointed out, that the question was only as to the payment of an inconsiderable sum yearly—say £13,000—from the Imperial fund, which might be further reduced. His view was that compensation was a fair compact between the town and the country, and ought to be provided out of the Imperial Exchequer.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he was surprised at the remarks which had fallen from the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), when he spoke of the present measure as a piece of class legislation. He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) thought he must have forgotten that he was in the House of Commons, and supposed himself to be addressing some other assembly. This was really an Imperial question. They had agreed, by a large majority, that the cattle trade should not be hampered in the way which the Bill at first contemplated; and they were going to let in clean cattle without discrimination to satisfy all parties in the country. It was not their intention for one moment to stop the supply of food. But the hon. Member tried to discredit the farmer in many ways. He ironically suggested that the farmers were not to be trusted to state whether they had or had not cattle plague on their farms, and that consequently they were to be offered a reward for giving information when cattle plague broke out. The farmers were not the men to hide for one moment the outbreak of so fatal a disease; and, therefore, the whole question must be looked at in its broadest view. The hon. Member, although he stated that in Prussia, under the municipal laws, payment was made by a poll tax for the cattle slaughtered for foot-and-mouth disease and pleuro-pneumonia, omitted most certainly to state that in the case of cattle plague slaughtered for cattle plague, the amount of compensation was paid out of funds provided by the Prussian Government. Pleuro-pneumonia and foot-and-mouth disease were treated differently here, and most properly—the

  1873
  payment being made out of the rates. If, therefore, the Government in Prussia paid the money for cases of cattle plague, that case was exactly analogous to what was to be done in this country. And then he asked again, referring to the Prussian system, why should they treat things in that exceptional way and with such class legislation? This was an utterly unworthy argument to be advanced by one who had since he had been in the House shown himself, up to the present time, so fair on all occasions. They had been prepared to make great concessions with regard to the Bill, and to place as few restrictions as possible in the way of meeting a great question of that kind. The question was an Imperial one; and he asked his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury on no account to move from their resolution not to alter the clause as laid down by the Bill.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, that the only application of the argument concerning the Prussian system of dealing with cattle disease made use of by the hon. Member for Birmingham was for the purpose of showing that the adoption of a poll tax was not without precedent. As he understood the Bill, the Government were going to forbid the importation of cattle from all countries; and it was only by an act of mercy on the part of the Privy Council, and after the matter had been brought before Parliament, that, by some possibility, foreign cattle from some countries might be admitted. He contended that the presumption of the Government was disease, and their general rule slaughter. The argument in favour of compensation would, therefore, hardly hold good; but as soon as hon. Gentlemen opposite turned round and gave the presumption as against disease, they might count upon the support of Members on his side of the House. When the hon. Member (Mr. Clare Read) quoted the Act relating to the Colorado beetle, he argued against himself; because, in that case, compensation was awarded from the local rates, and not from the Imperial funds. He was not willing to admit that the Privy Council could by any regulations keep out cattle disease should it prevail in neighbouring parts of the Continent. As regarded compensation, he was of opinion, in the case of cattle actually diseased and which were practically dead, that there should be little
  1874
  or no compensation. And in the case of cattle in contiguity with those infected, he was disposed to think that compensation should come from the local rates, or, better still, from a poll tax or insurance tax.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) passed for an advanced politician; but upon this subject he had proved that, though he had been a Member of the Committee on Cattle Plague, he was on this subject at least 13 years behind public intelligence. The hon. Member had adverted to the fact that at his (Mr. Newdegate's) instance Warwickshire was the second county which, in 1865, adopted the system of insurance. This was done not merely on the principle of obtaining compensation, but because the magistrates found that, without some such machinery, their police regulations were totally inoperative in the detection of outbreaks of cattle disease. He believed that that Society, in which he was proved to have taken a part, still existed; and for years it had, in Warwickshire, been used to supplement the action of Parliament; but public intelligence had enormously advanced since 1865. He regretted to say that the hon. Member for Birmingham did not seem to have profited by the information. In 1865 he (Mr. Newdegate) was Chairman of the Royal Veterinary College; The Times was engaged for six weeks in writing the veterinary profession down, because they had avowed that they could not cure the cattle plague. To such an extent did ignorance of that fact prevail that, acting with the treasurer of the college, they took upon themselves the responsibility of building a yard for cattle suffering from the plague, and invited the public to send there any specimens they chose, promising, at the same time, to see fairly applied any specifics or nostrums that could be desired. Many experiments were made. The records of the College with regard to the former outbreak of cattle plague proved that the disease was incurable, and that fact was again illustrated by the experiments of 1865. These, however, satisfied the public. It was in 1865 that, seeing the want of information which prevailed at the time, he urged his friends in Warwickshire to form the insurance association he had

  1875
  mentioned, and it was highly useful afterwards; because the first measures which Parliament adopted were insufficient, in respect of the compensation offered, to procure rapid and immediate information of the outbreaks of disease. The action of Parliament was in Warwickshire supplemented by using the funds of that Society. He believed that the existence of those societies went far to convince Parliament that the objects of their supporters were not merely selfish, and these were chiefly of the agricultural classes. These insurance societies were the forerunners of the legislation which existed. He trusted that the hon. Member for Birmingham would not press his Motion, for it reflected more on the conduct of Parliament than on the conduct of the agricultural body. It was somewhat surprising that the hon. Member, living in the county which was within a few hours the first to manifest its readiness to protect itself, should now come forward, after experience had proved that no local efforts could meet the difficulty, and impute to the agricultural body generally, and to his immediate neighbours, motives, which the conduct of his neighbours had, from the first, proved them to be incapable of entertaining.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINthought it his duty immediately to reply to the very strong personal attack which had been made upon him, and which, he ventured to say, was not justified by anything he had said in the course of the debate. He was quite unable to understand what was meant by the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), and was not aware that he had said anything unworthy of his position as a Member of the House. He said that he (Mr. Chamberlain) was forgetting his position as a Member of the House, and supposed that he was addressing some other assembly. He had not spoken to any assembly outside. The hon. Member suggested that he had spoken of the Bill as a piece of class legislation. All he had said was that measures of the kind were regarded with a great deal of prejudice by persons who were not conversant with the trade; but after the observations of the hon. and gallant Member, he did not mind saying that the Bill did constitute one of the worst Acts of class legislation which had been
  1876
  passed, or was likely to be passed, for some years. He had shown that there was absolutely no precedent for compensating any trade at the expense of the whole community. With regard to the precedent of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read), it was another case of the agricultural interest endeavouring to protect itself against what he called the visitation of Providence. The hon. and gallant Member had continued to impute that he had ironically charged the farmers with an offence against which they so strongly protested; but he had only quoted the words of Professor Brown, in the evidence which he gave before the Committee, when he said that he could not depend upon the then compensation as a means of securing information. He (Mr. Chamberlain) did not make this as a charge which involved any moral obliquity on the part of the persons concerned. He had read it to the Committee as part of the reason why that reward or compensation should be hereafter very considerably increased.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, the Amendment suggested to the Committee was that, instead of following the legislation with regard to compensation which had been acted upon for so many years, it should create a fresh system of compensation, and that it should be levied on the district where the disease broke out. Now, with respect to the kind of cattle plague with which they were dealing, it had been held to be so fatal that it was desirable to hold out inducements for procuring the earliest information on the subject, and the object which the Committee had in view was to provide compensation for the cattle that were slaughtered; and if cattle were to be slaughtered indiscriminately, he considered it only fair that compensation should be given out of Imperial funds.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYopposed the Amendment. The cases which had apparently guided the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) to his conclusions were not really applicable. The instances really in point showed that the proposal of the Government was a just one, and founded on experience. He would take the case of cargo jettisoned at sea in stress of weather, which was exactly in point. It sometimes happened that a ship's captain

  1877
  was justified, according to law, in throwing overboard a part of the cargo. The owner of the part of the cargo which was thrown overboard did not bear the sacrifice which was made for the benefit of all. On the arrival of the vessel at port, the loss was distributed amongst the owners of the rest of the cargo and of the ship. According to the reasoning of the hon. Member for Birmingham, the owner of the cargo which had been jettisoned was not to receive compensation at all, notwithstanding that his property was sacrificed to save the rest. The Government proposed, in the clause under discussion, to interfere with the animals belonging to individuals, and to cause them to be slaughtered for the general benefit of the nation, which was thus exactly in the same place as the owners of the ship and cargo at sea. In the present case, the cost was not for the benefit of the farmers or cow keepers, but for that of the nation generally, and he had not heard it even contended that this was not an Imperial question. If it were only a question of dealing with disease amongst their herds, it would be simply a matter for the farmers, and the House would have nothing to do with it. But he defied hon. Members to show a case where the property of individuals had been destroyed, however worthless at the time, and where the owners of that property had not received compensation. The question, in his opinion, was not one affecting farmers only, and he thought it could be safely said that if pleuro-pneumonia were to be put down, the reduction in the cost of milk would be very considerable. There was, no doubt, an enormously heavy loss continually arising throughout the United Kingdom from that disease, which largely increased the cost of the production of milk, and added very much to its cost to the consumer. He wished particularly to dwell upon, the point that if pleuro-pneumonia were exterminated by this legislation, the nation would greatly benefit by getting a better and a cheaper supply of milk. The principle which was behind the custom of general average for loss at sea seemed to him to be entirely in point in the present case; it was a principle which was not disputed amongst mercantile people, and, he believed, was adopted by all civilized nations. The question before the Committee was, whether the country was to
  1878
  compensate the owners of the destroyed property or not? He was very much opposed to sanctioning claims upon the Imperial Exchequer, for he believed that much more extravagant demands were made upon the Imperial funds than were usually claimed from local rates. Therefore, he should wish, as far as possible, to place a burden of this kind upon the local rates. The case of cattle plague was very different from that of pleuro-pneumonia and foot-and-mouth disease. Both the latter diseases were now indigenous in this country; whereas cattle plague had been, for the present at least, stamped out. For that reason, he thought the burden arising from pleuro-pneumonia and foot-and-mouth disease should be placed upon the rates. Cattle plague, he believed, was almost in every case brought into the country by imported cattle, which cattle had been imported for the general benefit of the nation. From the nature of the disease it was likely to break out in any locality, and not in the particular district which might happen to be benefited by the importation of foreign stock. It was only fair, in the case of the cattle plague, to make the loss an Imperial one. With regard to the other diseases, he considered that the charge should be made upon the local rates rather than upon the Imperial Exchequer. With reference to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Birmingham as to the imposition of a poll tax, a great deal, no doubt, could be said in its favour. But, considering that the adoption of such a policy would be much akin to that with regard to turnpike roads, when it used to be thought sound policy that only the people who used the roads should pay for them, but when now it was recognized to be better policy to impose the burden upon the whole locality which the roads benefited. Upon the principle of the modern turnpike legislation, he thought that the rates should be levied upon all the owners of property in the locality, and not upon the owners of animals only; for there could be no doubt that the inhabitants of the locality would be benefited by the suppression of the disease in their midst, besides obtaining meat and milk at reduced rates. Therefore, if there were to be interference with the property of the owners of animals for the general benefit and advantage, he thought it would be

  1879
  just, as well as expedient, to allow them compensation from the local rates.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERwas surprised at the extreme amount of heat which had been introduced into the discussion, for he must confess that he did not look upon this particular question as one of very great importance. No doubt, all questions of compensation were important as a matter of principle; but, in the present case, there was not much fear that there would be an annual charge. They had had two attacks of cattle plague since the great one; both were quickly got rid of; and he should look forward to the time when its appearance would be met by measures which should at once insure its being checked. Although, by the Act of 1869, compensation was to be paid out of the local rates to the owners of animals slaughtered as being infected or suspected, the Committee of 1867 recommended that it should be paid out of the Imperial funds. He thought there was a great deal to be said for keeping these burdens upon the local rates. Generally speaking, he considered this burden ought to fall upon the locality which might fairly be said to be benefited. But it must be admitted that there were, in this special case, two circumstances to be taken into consideration. In the first place, the Bill proposed to take from the local authority power to deal with the cattle plague. The Privy Council were to take the matter entirely into their own hands, and he had no doubt that this would be the better plan. But to pass from model justice to practical legislation, he thought it would be very inconvenient if the Inspectors of the Privy Council were to have the power of imposing serious expenses on the local rates. Therefore, he should reserve his opinion with regard to the principle, remembering that their object was then to meet an exceptional case by an exceptional remedy, and to allow the Privy Council to take the matter into their own hands. If the cattle plague re-appeared, it would probably come upon one or two districts, either London, or the East of Lincolnshire, or the East Riding of Yorkshire. They were more open to this disease than other places. No doubt, a district suffered very considerably by the cattle plague; because it was the duty of the Privy Council instantly to interfere with particular localities in the
  1880
  most serious manner. There was something to be said, therefore, in favour of placing the burden on the Exchequer, although it would not be sufficient to justify infringing a principle, if such were involved. The proposition of the hon. Member for Birmingham was not to place local rates in the place of the Imperial taxes, but to substitute a poll tax on the owners of cattle within a county at the time of the slaughter. The chief objection to that proposition was that it would be extremely difficult to levy such a tax; and, in his opinion, it would cost more to collect than would be procured by it. It was the business of the Government to keep out the cattle plague. While Vice President of the Privy Council, he was extremely anxious when he found he had to deal with the cattle plague. He thought it was the business of the Government to keep it out; and, therefore, he did not consider that they would be acting fairly in compensating for loss by the cattle plague by means of a poll tax. If the tax were only to be imposed to compensate for loss from pleuro-pneumonia and foot-and-mouth disease, his only difficulty was that he did not see how it could be done. He quite admitted that it would be a right principle upon which to assess compensation; but after admitting so much, it was hardly necessary that he should say that he did not think that this was a case for the poll tax. With regard to the other questions, he would reserve his opinions.
  MR. MUNTZsaid, that with regard to the case of general average, the fact was that when goods were thrown overboard the loss was borne by all who received benefit from the sacrifice. That was exactly what was proposed by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain); for he wished compensation to be paid by the other farmers and cowkeepers in a county whose animals would suffer from disease if those infected were not destroyed. Moreover, the owners of goods in a ship did not contribute beyond 3 per cent, nor could they recover anything for their loss, unless the ship was insured. With respect to the question whether this ought to be a burden upon the Imperial funds or not, he did not consider that those who contended it was an Imperial matter had proved their case. It had been said that the suppression of the

  1881
  disease would increase the number of cattle and reduce the price of milk; but, judging by numerous communications which he had had from farmers, he concluded that under no circumstances would more cattle be kept than at the present time. The question was, whether this destruction of cattle was for the benefit of the owners of cattle generally, or for that of the public? With reference to stamping out the disease, he did not think that it would be possible altogether to do so, and as the benefit to the public was based only on the presumed increased supply of meat and milk, he could not see that the effect of the Act would be exclusively for their benefit.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYwished to state that he believed the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) was entirely mistaken in supposing that there was any such limitation as he had indicated in the case of goods jettisoned. It was what was called a general average, and the loss was borne by the ship freight in cargo, in proportion to their several values, when they arrived in port.
  Amendment, to insert "local authority," instead of "Privy Council," negatived.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he proposed to take a division upon the second Amendment, which provided that compensation, payable out of this Bill, should be paid out of a special rate in the nature of a poll tax, according to the number of the cattle possessed by any person within a county at the time of slaughter.
  Question put, "That the words 'out of money provided by Parliament' stand part of the said proposed Amendment."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 184; Noes 30: Majority 154.—(Div. List, No. 224.)
  MR. J. W. BARCLAY MR. J. W. BARCLAY moved, in page 6, line 31, after "be," to insert "three-fourths of the loss arising from the slaughter of the animal based on." The hon. Gentleman said, he moved the Amendment because, from his experience, it was a great advantage to induce farmers to co-operate with the local authorities in making the loss as small as possible. By the Bill as it stood, the farmer would get compensation, whether
  1882
  he put himself to some trouble to diminish the loss, or whether he was regardless in the matter. Directly a place was declared to be infected with cattle plague, if a farmer knew that he could get compensated in full he would take no trouble. But if the Amendment were adopted, the farmer would understand that one-fourth of the loss would fall upon himself, and he would therefore do his best to diminish it. This question occupied a considerable portion of the time of the Committee of 1873. They recommended that whatever compensation was paid should bear some proportion to the owner's loss. He hoped that the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury would consider that recommendation, and whether legislation would not act best if the farmer were given an interest in diminishing the loss. Several local authorities supported this view.
  MR. CLARE READagreed with the principle propounded by the hon. Member for Forfarshire, that the farmer should be given an interest in the salvage, and so aid in diminishing the evil from the slaughter of his cattle. But in cattle plague he thought compensation of half the value was enough. It should also be remembered that there was a difference with regard to cattle plague, where the carcase was buried, and pleuro-pneumonia, where the salvage was considerable.
  MR. WHITWELLthought it would be better to leave the question as it was, although it might be well to disqualify the farmer under certain circumstances from receiving a portion of the compensation.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that Clause 29, paragraph 7, provided that the Privy Council were to have power to withhold compensation in such cases as in the exercise of their discretion they thought fit. He could not accept the Amendment proposed. In the first place, it was on the recommendation of the Committee that it was proposed in the sub-section to give compensation amounting to half the value of diseased animals for the full value of animals that were not diseased. It was proposed that in the latter case the awarding of the full compensation should be in the discretion of the Privy Council, with respect to the point raised as to whether the value given should be that

  1883
  of the animals slaughtered, or loss arising to its owner from its slaughter. The Committee would see how difficult it would be to estimate the amount of evil arising to an owner from the slaughter of his cattle; whereas the value of the animal was easily ascertained, and no difficulty would arise.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, that the Bill as it stood proposed that the owners of animals not infected should be compensated for their loss. He believed that it was quite possible to give a fair compensation, and yet to treat it in such a manner that the cowkeeper or farmer was given an interest in reducing the evil. He, therefore, proposed that the compensation should be three-fourths of the loss arising to the owner. In estimating that loss, he did not contemplate taking into account general or indirect damage. But he thought that if owners had interest in reducing the loss, the owner of the animal affected would put himself to trouble to prevent the spreading of the disease amongst his herd, and also see that proper precautions were taken in respect of quarantine when bringing in new animals.
  MR. DODSONsaid, that it would be a fair question to consider whether the owners of animals slaughtered should be compensated for the full value, or for some proportion of it; but, in any case, it was the value of the animal which must be the basis of the compensation, or else the matter would become unnecessarily complicated.
  MR. SYNANthought the Amendment was rather ambiguous in its terms, and that before it could be adopted by the Committee it must be made clearer. He hoped that the hon. Member, in the interest of those whose cause he advocated, would withdraw the Amendment.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, that the Amendment would be free from ambiguity, as it provided that the compensation should be three-fourths of the loss arising from the slaughter of the animal, based upon the value of it immediately before it was so slaughtered. But after the expressions of opinion to which he had listened, he should ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN, who had given Notice of the following Amendment, in page 6, after line 33, to insert:—
  1884
  "Provided, That no compensation shall be granted in respect of any animal slaughtered when the owner or the person having charge thereof has teen guilty in relation to such animal of any act in contravention of this Act, or of any order, regulation, or licence of the Privy Council, or of a local authority, or has, in relation to such animal, failed to comply with the provisions of this Act, or of any such order, regulation, or licence, in respect of the giving of notice of disease, or in any other respect;"
  said, he did not now propose to move it, because he found it was provided for in Clause 29.
  Clause agreed to.

  Pleuro-pneumonia.
  Clause 16 (Declaration of infected place in pleuro-pneumonia by local authority).
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN MR. CHAMBERLAIN moved, in page 6, line 35, to leave out "twenty-eight," and insert "fifty-six." There was an inconsistency in the Bill as it now stood. The insertion of 28 days in the clause was inconsistent with Clause 20, where 56 days appeared as the period after the expiration of which the local authority might order a place to be declared free from pleuro-pneumonia. Professor Brown said that he had repeatedly known two months to elapse before pleuro-pneumonia appeared. In cross-examination, he said that nothing had occurred since 1872 to shake his opinion upon that subject. That testimony was confirmed by Professor Simonds, who said that 56 days was not always sufficient for the period of incubation. And an Irish witness, Professor Baldwin, who seemed to represent the agricultural interests of Ireland, had an interview with the Lord President of the Council with reference to this matter, and pointed out that cases had arisen in his experience in which the outbreak of disease had occurred at a much longer period than 56 days, and in one of the cases which he mentioned, three months had elapsed between the outbreak of cases. In the interest of stock owners, therefore, it would be well that a period from which the Inspector could declare the place for pleuro-pneumonia should be stated.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONthought that the hon. Member for Birmingham had slightly misunderstood the clause. It referred to a case in which an Inspector discovered pleuro-pneumonia, and it was only on that

  1885
  account that he was to declare the place infected. If declared infected, it would remain so for 56 days after the disease had ceased.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINdid not think that the hon. Baronet quite followed the point which he wished to make.
  MR. SYNANconsidered the circumstances upon which the hon. Member for Birmingham based his Amendment to be extremely doubtful. There had been instances in Ireland in which the disease had re-appeared after three months' immunity; but that was not due to previous infection, but to an entirely fresh and separate outbreak. Indeed, he had never known a case of a farm where, after a lapse of 28 days, the disease had propagated itself by succession; so that it appeared to him it was really very little matter, practically, whether they made the period 28 days or 56.
  MR. O'SULLIVANalso asserted that the recurrence of disease within three months was generally due not to a continuation of a former outbreak, but to fresh infection; and, therefore, he contended that the limit might stand at 28 days, as proposed by the Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. SYNAN MR. SYNAN moved, in page 6, line 37, to insert the words "not being a fair, or market-place, or wharf," after the word "place" in the clause. In Ireland the fair-places were not so well in closed, nor the market-places so ornate as in England; there were neither sheds, nor stalls, nor pens, nor anything else for the accommodation of animals. The gatherings, in fact, were generally held in a field, upon which, perhaps, there had not been any cattle for a year before; therefore, there could not be any pleuro-pneumonia existing in such a "place." Yet, under the Bill, it would be open to an Irish Inspector—perhaps an unprofessional man, knowing nothing about cattle diseases, and consequently likely, in most cases, to be mistaken—of his own motion to serve notice on the occupiers declaring the field to be an "infected place." What would be the result of such a proceeding at Ballinasloe, for instance? Why, that all the people would rush from the fair under the apprehension that their beasts would be detained there for 56 days—and, as a consequence, an
  1886
  end would virtually be put to the whole cattle trade of Ireland—every market and fair would practically be extinguished. He could not conceive that the Secretary to the Treasury would decline to make a concession which was simply intended to plainly and unmistakably define what to every lawyer was the obvious meaning of the clause. The clause as it was framed would work the greatest mischief that had ever been inflicted on Ireland, and would stir up the dealers to active hostility towards the Bill.
  MR. WHITWELLurged that it was very desirable that the exemptions under the Bill should not be made too numerous or too large, otherwise markets and fairs would very speedily become the centres of infection.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that he had not, since the Amendment was placed on the Paper, had an opportunity of consulting the draftsman who drew the Bill. His own opinion had been that no tribunal having to construe the clauses would have any difficulty in coming to the opinion that markets and fairs were dealt with under Clause 26; but, as it was now stated that an exceptional state of things existed in Ireland, he would agree to look into the question with the draftsman with a view to seeing if some words could not be inserted in the clause that would get over the difficulty which had been raised. He could not, however, at that moment, undertake to accept the Amendment.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYhoped that the Secretary to the Treasury would place the meaning of the Bill beyond all doubt by inserting a Proviso that the Bill should not apply to any markets or fairs in Ireland.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONrepeated that he had not had an opportunity of consulting with the draftsman as to the effect of the words of the clause in reference to markets and fairs in Ireland; but that he would do so, and communicate the result to hon. Members the next day.
  MR. ANDERSONwas afraid, if exceptions were made in favour of markets and fairs in Ireland, that the real object of the Bill would be defeated, and that the "places" themselves would become hotbeds of disease. The exceptional state of things alluded to by the hon. Member for Limerick County (Mr.

  1887
  Synan) was, in his opinion, fully provided for under Clause 26; and, therefore, he thought the Secretary to the Treasury ought at once to refuse to make any alteration in the Bill.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYmaintained that it was perfectly clear that Clause 16 was intended to apply to markets and fairs such as had been referred to by the hon. Member for Limerick County; but what was wanted was that the Government should make clear its intention on the subject, especially as the condition of the two countries was entirely different. He agreed that if the clause were enforced against Ireland, the result would be to stop the whole cattle trade of the country.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINadmitted that those who desired to make the Bill a real Bill would have to give their attention to the case of Ireland; but, in this matter, he confessed his opinion that if the farmers of England were ready to submit to severe restrictions for stamping out disease, the farmers of Ireland should do the same, or else consent to be treated as a foreign country. Professor Simonds, in his evidence before the Committee of the House of Lords, stated that if it were seriously intended to stamp-out pleuro-pneumonia and "foot-and-mouth," it would be absolutely necessary to stop such a fair as Ballinasloe, at least until the disease had passed away; and that being the testimony on which they ought to act, he hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would not alter the clause as suggested.
  MR. SYNANthought the spirit of his Amendment had been misapprehended. He did not want any special advantages for Ireland; all he claimed was that Ireland should not be put under conditions which in England would not be tolerated for a moment. He contended that, under the 26th clause, it was within the power of the Privy Council to stop Ballinasloe, or any other market or fair in Ireland; and he was entirely at a loss to see what objection there could be to remove an ambiguity which might lead to mischief and bad feeling. He was ready, however, to accept the offer of the Secretary to the Treasury, on the understanding that the consideration of that part of the clause to which his Amendment applied was postponed.
  Mr. J. COWENwas of opinion that the question raised by the hon. Member for Limerick County (Mr. Synan) affected the whole point of the Bill. One of two things ought to be done; either Ireland should be treated in absolutely the same way as England, or she should be put in the category of a foreign country. How could Ireland expect to be placed on a footing with England unless she consented to the same restrictions? It was an irrefutable fact, that in the North of England more disease came from Ireland than from any Continental country he could mention. If the object of the Bill was really to stamp out disease, it was well that the Government and the Committee should fully understand the position of Ireland in this matter, and that they should see that it was absolutely necessary that the restrictions should apply equally to both countries.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, his opposition to the second reading of the Bill was because it seemed conceived in the spirit of that legislation which, in a former age, treated cattle importations from Ireland as a common nuisance, and prohibited them entirely; and that he thought was, to some extent, the spirit in which the Bill was framed, and as it was desired it should pass, and if Irish Members endeavoured to get special exemptions, that was what they might bring on themselves. If the exceptional provisions which the Irish Members were now trying to obtain were conceded, before the Privy Council could interfere, the fairs or markets would become hotbeds of disease; so, unless the Secretary to the Treasury retained the clause as it stood, the purpose of the Bill would be defeated.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. M'LAGANreferred to the Amendment he had placed on the Paper, making it compulsory, instead of optional, to extend the limits of the "declared" place to adjoining buildings, and announced that he intended to withdraw it in favour o the Motion about to be proposed by the hon. Member for Birmingham, by which he thought the largest amount of security would be obtained.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN MR. CHAMBERLAIN moved, in page 7, line 16, at end, to insert—

  1889
  "And should include within those limits all other lands or buildings adjoining or near thereto, and in the same occupation."
  The object of the Amendment, he said, was to carry out the recommendations made to the Committee of the House of Lords. Professor Simonds, in his evidence before their Lordships, objected to the limited area which it was competent for an Inspector to declare infected, and advised that the "declaration" should be enlarged to all lands and premises held by the same occupier, with power to extend the area even further. In "another place," both Professor Simonds and Professor Brown agreed that some such regulations were absolutely necessary, if an attempt was to be made to stamp out disease. He thought the Committee must agree that it was undesirable to place any more discretion in the hands of the local authorities than had already been conceded; but if they were unwilling to trust the Privy Council in this matter, it would be a curious thing to leave so much to the subordinate body.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 7, line 17, to leave out from the word "and," to the word "relates," in line 19, inclusive, in order to insert the words "shall include."—(Mr. Chamberlain.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. CLARE READwished the Committee to remember the great difference between pleuro-pneumonia and foot-and-mouth disease. Experiments seemed to prove that pleuro-pneumonia could only be communicated by the breath of the living animal; what made it so dangerous was the long and uncertain period of its incubation. In the case of pleuro-pneumonia, therefore, a comparatively small area of "declaration" would suffice. He begged to call the attention of the hon. Member for Birmingham to the fact that the evidence he had quoted was given entirely in reference to foot-and-mouth disease. He thought the Bill, as it stood, was quite sufficient to meet all cases of pleuro-pneumonia.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, the effect of the Amendment would be practically to take away the discretion of the local authorities. The difference
  1890
  between pleuro-pneumonia and the diseases to be dealt with by the Privy Council, under previous clauses, was very great. If, in pleuro-pneumonia, the period of incubation lasted a considerable time, the means of communicating the disease was much more limited; and, therefore, the necessity for proscribing a very large area did not exist. By the present clause, they simply gave power to the local authority to "declare" any place which it might think it wise or necessary to place under that ban; and he ventured to think that if they deprived the local authority of that discretion in the matter of a disease which, whilst it was contagious, was not so subtle as others, it would be a tendency to induce such local authority to slacken its action.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN, by further quotation from the evidence given before the Lords' Committee, showed that the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) was mistaken in supposing that the testimony of Professor Simonds referred only to foot-and-mouth disease. He reminded the Committee that witnesses well qualified to represent the agricultural interest had stated, over and over again, that the farmers were quite willing to submit to severe regulations if a really effective attempt was to be made to stamp out disease. It would be very unwise, then, now that they were engaged in such an attempt, that all the sacrifices which were ready to be made should be rendered useless by concessions to just one of the many interests concerned.
  MR. MACDONALDmaintained that if Professor Simonds classed pleuro-pneumonia and foot-and-mouth disease together, he could not have been a very reliable authority, since everyone knew that they required entirely different treatment. He would only say, so much for experts. Pleuro-pneumonia, as the hon. Member for South Norfolk had said, could only be communicated by the breath of the living animal; and it was possible, therefore, to confine the disease to a small space. He thought it would be unwise to put upon the farmers, or those who kept cattle, any unnecessary restrictions.
  MR. M'LAGANremarked, that as this was the first Bill that had been introduced with the avowed object of stamping out cattle disease, the farmers

  1891
  of the country ought to show a disposition to submit to very severe regulations. It was quite true that pleuro-pneumonia and foot-and-mouth disease required different treatment, and that the latter was more infectious than the former; but yet it seemed to him to be necessary that they should have as strict regulations for the one as for the other, since when pleuro-pneumonia broke out it most frequently extended to a whole district. The object of the hon. Member for Birmingham was to make a prescribed area greater than that contained in the Bill, and that was also the object of the Amendment of which he (Mr. M'Lagan) had given Notice. The number of animals that had been lost through pleuro-pneumonia had been very great indeed, and an extension of area would be in the interests of the farmers themselves; because it would make those who occupied adjoining farms look after the matter and endeavour, as far as they could, to prevent their herds becoming affected. In this way the extension of the area would not only be in the interests of the farmers, but also in the interests of their neighbours. In every district he found that the farmers were anxious to go to the markets and purchase cattle, without taking the trouble to ascertain whether they were affected by disease or not. They brought them home to the very gates of their neighbours, and no one was able to tell what the loss really was which resulted from this practice. Therefore, if an extension of the prescribed area would have the effect of making the persons living in that area look after not only their own interests, but those of the adjoining farmers, a very good result would be accomplished. On these grounds, it would be advantageous that they should extend the area as suggested by the hon. Member for Birmingham. So far as his (Mr. M'Lagan's) Amendment was concerned, he should not move it, if he found the general feeling of the House against the principle of the hon. Member for Birmingham. If, however, his hon. Friend carried his Amendment to a division, he (Mr. M'Lagan) should feel bound to support him.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked the Secretary to the Treasury to explain, whether Sub-section 2 of Clause 17, on page 8 of the Bill, would apply to those cases? That sub-section said that—
  1892
  "The Privy Council may, from time to time, if they think fit, by order extend the limits of a place infected with pleuro-pneumonia, declared either by a local authority or by the Privy Council."
  It was a matter for consideration whether it would be necessary for the hon. Member for Birmingham to propose a new clause when they had already a clause in the Bill which carried out the same object.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, the sub-section referred to did not meet his intentions in proposing the Amendment. It provided that—
  "The Privy Council may from time to time, if they think fit, by order extend the limits of a place infected with pleuro-pneumonia declared either by a local authority or by the Privy Council."
  That was a very round a bout way. What he wanted to insist upon was that the local authorities should in every place, without an appeal to the Privy Council or anybody else, declare that all lands in the same occupation constituted an infected place. He considered the Amendment to be of considerable importance, and he should certainly carry it to a division.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, the Amendment tended to carry out the principle he had himself endeavoured to establish. It was quite true that pleuro-pneumonia could not be communicated to a live animal except by contact; but they were bound to make provision against the possibility of contact in taking cattle from one field to another. Then, again, animals might come in contact with each other across fences. The question was, however, whether this Amendment was necessary, or whether it was desirable that the district or infected place should be extended so as to include all lands and buildings in the same occupation? He understood this to be the Amendment of his hon. Friend. He certainly thought that in that case they should make the regulations as stringent and effectual as possible, and not leave the matter to the discretion of the Inspector, who might be open to local influences. His own opinion was that in every case where disease existed the provisions of the Act ought to be carried into effect, whether one particular field or stable was infected or not.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, it was provided by the Bill that the Inspector was to

  1893
  make a declaration, which declaration was to be sent to the local authority; and the local authority was then, if they considered it necessary, to call in extra assistance—namely, that of the veterinary surgeon. The clause gave them the power to go even beyond the land referred to in the declaration. The section or clause now under discussion said—
  "If the local authority are satisfied of the correctness of the Inspector's declaration as regards the existence or past existence of disease, they shall by order determine and declare accordingly, and prescribe the limits of the place infected with pleuro-pneumonia, and may, if if they think fit, include within those limits any lands or buildings adjoining or near to the cowshed, field, or other place to which the Inspector's declaration relates."
  He was afraid that the adoption of the Amendment would, in reality, limit the jurisdiction of the local authority to something definite; whereas, at present, the clause gave them full power to go beyond the Inspector's declaration, and to take cognizance of adjoining lands, which might by possibility be infected by disease.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERthought there was a difficulty in the matter. It was exceedingly important, in regard to the action of the Privy Council, that it should be known what the Government meant by the word "place." He thought it was most desirable that they should have a definition of that word, especially in connection with the home diseases. At present the clause read—"cowshed, field, or other place;" but something more definite ought to be given. Until they knew exactly what was meant by "place," they did not know what they had to deal with at all; and, therefore, he thought he might fairly ask the Government what they meant by "place" in the words "cowshed, field, or other place?" They had now before them an Amendment to increase the limits within which the Act should apply; but, in the first instance, it was necessary that they should know what the place was before they increased the limit of it. He should be much obliged if the Secretary to the Treasury would give some information to the Committee.
  MR. SYNANwas sorry the right hon. Gentleman was not present when the discussion occurred on the word "place" in connection with another
  1894
  part of the Bill. Probably the right hon. Gentleman might have forced the Treasury to come to some conclusion on the subject. He (Mr. Synan) offered what he considered convincing arguments to show that the word "place" ought not to be allowed to remain undefined, and that it should not include such places as fairs, markets, and wharves. He could not accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Birmingham on plain and obvious grounds. In the first place, it was somewhat strange that they, not being professional men, acquainted with this particular disease, should endeavour to draw a hard-and-fast line in the clause, taking away all discretion from professional men who were called upon to report as to the disease, and who were the best judges how a particular locality infected with the disease ought to be extended. No doubt, in the case of pleuro-pneumonia, the narrower they made the area the better it would be for the purpose of stamping out the disease. The hon. Member for Birmingham, however, seemed to be of opinion that the best course would be to make the area as large as possible. Now, suppose the hon. Member had two farms, of 1,000 acres each, with a cowshed at the end of one of them and another cowshed at the end of the other. If the disease affected one of the farms, the shed upon that farm would be very far away from the shed upon the other, and it would not be necessary to include the whole of the two farms in the application of the Act. To his (Mr. Synan's) mind, it would be better to leave this matter to the professional men who were investigating the case. They would know what parts of the farm were infected, and would be the best judges within what limits to extend or define the boundaries of the infected area. He thought it would be much better to leave this matter to the professional men, rather than draw a hard-and-fast line taking all discretion away from him.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that as he understood the clause and the object of the Bill, it was, while giving the fullest possible power to the local authority to extend the limits whenever they thought it desirable, to restrict, as far as possible, the first initiative or the first danger. In the Act passed by the right hon. Member for Bradford

  1895
  (Mr. W. E. Forster) the area was similarly limited to a cowshed, field, or other place.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERasked what was the meaning of the word "place?"
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsupposed that place meant about the same thing as was meant by the other words in the clause. A "place" would be a similar thing to a cowshed or a field—a farm-yard or a building connected with a farm-yard. When they wanted to go into a larger area the local authority had to define what the limits were. He thought that would be safer than laying down a distinctly larger area in the first place. There was considerable force, he thought, in the remarks which had fallen from the hon. Member for Limerick County (Mr. Synan). If they took the terms of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Birmingham, they might have a person who had two farms or even more in common contiguity, and who, under these words, would practically be restricted from removing his cattle in a farm where no disease existed, because he happened to have disease on another farm in his occupation. He thought that, on the whole, the Committee would see that ample power was given to the local authorities to deal with this disease, which was admitted not to be as infectious as the disease they had dealt with in a previous clause. It was not desirable to extend the meaning of the word "place," so as to cover any amount of ground as foreshadowed in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Birmingham.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, there was no doubt that power was given to the local authority to extend the limit; but the question was, what the local authority were directed to do? His hon. Friend said that "place" meant something like a cowshed or field. But the point was—what was like a cowshed or field? [Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: A farm-yard.] Was it to apply to a wharf, pen, or lair? The Committee at present were absolutely in the dark, unless they knew what the "place" was where the disease existed, because the stamping-out arrangements were to spring from the "place" where the disease began. When they once came to the conclusion that a place was infected, then there was to be power to
  1896
  enlarge it—and if a case of pleuro-pneumonia was discovered, it would be possible to declare the district round it infected with the disease; but, unless they knew what the area was to be, they would be absolutely in the dark. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Birmingham was that they should include within that limit all other land and buildings adjoining. What he wanted to know was what it was adjoining, and what it was near? He knew it was not a very easy thing to define; but he thought that the Government, before carrying into effect any stamping out measures, should define, in their own minds, what waste be the place to begin with. He understood what a cowshed was, and what a field was; but he had a very vague notion of what a "place" was, especially when the Secretary to the Treasury told him that it was something like this. He wanted to know in what respect it was like it?
  MR. MACDONALDsaid, it occurred to him that the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), and those who took the same view, that a very precise definition should be given to the word "place," they were defeating the object they had in view in passing the Bill. If there was a cowshed or lair in any other part of a farm away from the spot where the disease broke out, it might be said that the disease did not occur there; and, therefore, he thought that the word "place" was the proper word to use, because, under that word, they could lay hold of any portion of the farm and of any place which came within the meaning of the Act. If the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman were adopted, they would only give a more vague definition, which might, he thought, have the effect of enabling an offender to escape, if the part of his property infected with the disease did not happen to come within the definition. Under these circumstances, he thought the word "place" was the most correct word that could be put into the Bill. He had listened to the remarks of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. M'Lagan). There was no man in the House whose observations upon any question respecting cattle or farming would be received with more respect, except, probably, those of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read); but his argument upon the

  1897
  Amendment of the hon. Member for Birmingham was a very extraordinary one. The hon. Member said that if pleuro-pneumonia broke out in one farm, it would be sure to break out in the next. Now, what did that mean? If it were correct, it meant that when once pleuro-pneumonia occurred, it must extend all over the country. Now, as far as his own knowledge and experience went—and ho knew something about it, personally—he was not aware that when pleuro-pneumonia broke out in one farm, it was a necessary sequence that it should break out in the farm adjoining.
  MR. CLARE READwas prepared to endorse what had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald). It was quite possible for cattle on a farm to be free from disease, while cattle on the same farm were affected with it. If, however, they were allowed to come into contact with each other, or to smell each other across a hedge, it was possible for the disease to be communicated. But his own experience—which, he was sorry to say, ranged over a long period—in regard to pleuro-pneumonia, was directly in contradiction to the experience of his hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. M'Lagan). He did not think that the disease did spread from farm to farm, unless the animals were brought into immediate contiguity to each other. In regard to this clause, he thought they must give the local authority a certain discretionary power. The circumstances, for instance, were not always the same. Take a farm in the winter and in the summer. As his hon. Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan) said, in the winter months the cattle might be in a cowhouse or in a yard, and what would be the use of declaring the whole of 1,000 acres of land infected, when they could isolate all the cattle desired in a much smaller area? On the other hand, if that same farm was a grazing farm, in the summer months it would be found necessary to place the whole of it under a ban, and, perhaps, to go considerably beyond the farm itself. He, therefore, thought that this was a matter that ought to be left to the discretion of the local authority. He was certainly of opinion that the disease was not so contagious as any other disease they had to deal with.
  MR. PEASEwished to point out to his right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), that by Sub-section 6—
  "If the local authority are satisfied of the correctness of the Inspector's declaration as regards the existence, or past existence, of disease, they shall, by order, determine and declare accordingly, and prescribe the limits of the place infected with pleuro-pneumonia, and may, if they think fit, include within those limits any lands or buildings adjoining, or near to, the cowshed, field, or other place to which the Inspector's declaration relates."
  Therefore, as his hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) had pointed out, the discretion in defining what was to be a "place" really rested with the local authority, and that was the only thing, he thought, the Committee could adopt. If they assented to the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, they would place the farm which he (Mr. Pease) occupied in a condition of very considerable difficulty. The farm he referred to, which was in his own occupation, was several miles long, and situated on a hill side. If disease broke out upon it, there was no reason whatever why the whole place should be declared infected, especially when the place where the disease broke out could be easily defined.
  MR. GREGORYcould not help thinking that they were fighting for a shadow in taking issue upon that word "place." They ought to take the whole of these clauses together; and, if they did, they would find that the Inspector was to make a report and serve a notice. Upon that notice and report, the cowshed, field, or other place infected with the disease would be determined. It was to such a place so determined as infected that Sub-section 6 would apply. If they attempted to define the place more strictly, they would miss their whole object, and exclude a number of buildings, fields, or pens, which would be brought within the meaning of the clause by using the term now applied. Now, with respect to the clause and the Proviso proposed, he would point out a case within his own knowledge. He happened to have a farm held by a tenant who held another farm under another landlord. Both, however, were in the same occupation, although one was two miles away from the other. The

  1899
  Amendment of the hon. Member for Birmingham said—"adjoining or near to." Now, "near to" was very vague, and if they gave it to any local authority to determine the meaning of these words, they might depend upon it that very different definitions would be given. In another case within his own knowledge, a tenant occupied two farms, one a mile from the other. Was this to be considered "near?" The two farms were certainly in the same occupation. He certainly thought that these words went much too far, and would give rise to considerable difficulty.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERwas sorry to be so pertinacious; but it was simply because he wanted to know how they were going to form the Act. His hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) said he thought it would be better to leave the clause as it stood, and the hon. Member who had just sat down confirmed that view. But he wanted the Secretary to the Treasury to tell the Committee whether, if pleuro-pneumonia were found in some animals in a marketplace, that market place was to be considered a "place" within the meaning of the clause? Really, they ought to know this. It would be impossible to frame measures for stamping out disease until they knew how they were to deal with such cases as this. Were they to be expected to declare, in such a case as this, that a market-place was something like a cowshed, field, or farm, or was it to be left to the discretion of the local authority? If it were left to the discretion of the local authority, it would be very unlikely that they would get anything approaching uniformity of action. The local authority in one case where the disease was found in a market-place might declare that that was a place within the meaning of the Act; whereas, in another case, no such declaration would be made. What chance, therefore, would there be of having that kind of action in the country which they required in order to stamp out the disease? An hon. Member behind him said it would be easy to pen off a certain portion of a market. Now, he did not know that that would be a very easy thing to do, as there must be some kind of general understanding. It would not do to leave such a matter to haphazard. Their only chance of stamping out the disease would be to take away
  1900
  the diseased animals where there was the slightest infection, and there would be the greatest amount of infection where there was the greatest number of animals about—and, surely, that would be in a market? He wanted to know whether the clause was to deal with a market-place or not?
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he hoped to satisfy the right hon. Gentleman on that point. The question with regard to the word "place" was entirely governed by what had been stated by the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease). If the Inspector found that the infection had broken out on a particular farm-yard, he would, for the purposes of the Act, declare that farm-yard to be an infected place, and he would then let the local authority know, and the local authority would define what the limits of that place were—either that the whole of that farm was infected, or that the whole of two or three farms in the same occupation were infected, as the case might be. He (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) happened to hold three farms, not in contiguity; one was half-a-mile, and another was a mile from the third, and it would be a great injustice to put them all under the same ban. That was a case in point. As to the question about markets, if the right hon. Gentleman would refer to Clause 96, he would find that the Privy Council were to lay down rules and regulations which would show how all animals in every district throughout the country were to be dealt with when disease showed itself, if they were exposed for sale or exhibition in a market or other place, and in a previous sub-section there were provisions with regard to animals on a wharf. This showed that the Privy Council were to define where the action was to be universal, and that where it happened in the district of a local authority the local authority should define the limits of the place which was to be considered infected.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that this merely brought the Committee to a point which he thought most unfortunate. He did not know that this was exactly the time, but the sooner they got it the better, for he thought they had a right to ask the Government what sort of order they intended to promulgate with regard to markets? In what direction was it to be? He did not want

  1901
  details; but was it to be to the effect that when they found an animal in the market-place affected with pleuro-pneu-monia, they were to consider that market-place infected or not? Unless they could tell the Committee what they were going to do when they found the disease in a market-place, they were asking the Committee to pass the Bill in the dark. The observations of the hon. Baronet would seem to mean that they were going to give absolute discretion to the Privy Council, and he did not know that he should object to that; but that was not the way in which they were dealing with the foreign trade. The position the Government now took was that they gave the Privy Council discretion in certain directions in respect to the foreign trade; and he thought they had a right to ask, in the interest of all parties, for some sort of information as to what the Government intended to do in such a matter as this—how they meant to deal with those animals when they were found in a market-place? The evidence of the experts, Professors Brown and Simonds, and of others who knew anything of the practical working of these Acts, showed that they knew that this was a crucial test. They knew how to deal with a stable or a cowshed, but it was different with a market-place; and if the Bill was to become an Act without their being informed on that point, they would be absolutely in the dark.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be satisfied with the explanation of the hon. Baronet. The principle of the Bill he understood to be that the Privy Council were to lay down general orders as regarded market-places and other places; the local authority, having a special knowledge of those places, were to convey those orders out, and having taken the advice of a veterinary surgeon, in addition to that of their own Inspector, were to declare the limits of the place. The Amendment now before the Committee would limit a "place" to lands and buildings in the same occupation; whereas the place might be in contiguity to another occupation, and the local authority would, under the proposal in the Bill, have authority to declare that an infected place as well as the place the man occupied. He submitted that the Committee should not adopt the limit proposed.
  MR. EARPsaid, he very much questioned whether the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) was justified in expressing himself so confidently with regard to the necessity of actual contact between living animals in order to spread this contagious disease. He thought it would be very unwise to pass this clause without some qualifying words.
  MR.CHAMBERLAINsaid, he thought there was some force in the objection of the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Goldney), and that his Amendment would have the effect of limiting the discretion of the local authority. But if the Committee and the Secretary to the Treasury saw fit to accept his Amendment, it might be further amended by omitting the word "and," and making it read "also in the same occupation." It was quite true that, under the existing Act, the local authority had ample powers; but could they trust the local authority in all cases to exercise those powers? Were they certain that there would be anything like uniform action throughout the country? What really had been the foundation for all this legislation? It was that the local authorities in respect to this particular work had been tried and found wanting. In the Reports of the Veterinary Department, and also in the evidence given before the Committee on the subject of the cattle plague, there ran a continuous thread of complaint against them; and if they had failed in the cattle plague, they were à fortiori more likely to fail with respect to pleuro-pneumonia. Objection had been taken that the Amendment would be very unfair in such a case as that mentioned by the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease), who told the Committee that he had a farm which was two miles long. But the proposal was merely to apply to pleuro-pneumonia what was already the law with regard to cattle plague. Section 34 of the Act of 1869 stated that where an Inspector found the cattle plague or the sheep pox existing within a district, he should forthwith make a declaration under his hand to that effect; and that, thereupon, the place specified in the declaration, together with all the lands and buildings contiguous thereto and in the same occupation, should become an infected place. The construction he put upon that was that all the

  1903
  lands and buildings in the same occupation would be included in the place; and, therefore, the farm mentioned by the hon. Member for South Durham would, under that provision, become an infected place. This very question was distinctly put to some of the witnesses who were called before the Committee, and they said they knew of instances in which, owing to the absence of some such provision, cattle had been removed from one part of a farm to another, and that the disease had thereby been spread. But if serious objection was taken on the ground of possible hardship in exceptional cases, it might be met by giving discretion to the Privy Council to reduce the limits in cases in which they thought fit. But the proposal only was to apply in this case what hon. Gentlemen opposite claimed in the case of the foreign trade—namely, that exclusion should be the rule, and that inclusion should be within the discretion of the Privy Council. He asked them to treat the foreign trade and the home trade on the same principle—that the declaration of an infected district should be made imperative on the local authority, and that the Privy Council should be allowed to remit it in exceptional instances. He would trust the discretion of the Privy Council rather than the discretion of the local authority, who might not be ready to do what involved great annoyance to some of their own number or their colleagues in trade, and it was therefore undesirable that the discretion should be left in their hands. There was one other point to which he wished to direct the attention of the Committee. It would be observed that in the next sub-section it was provided that the local authority might include in an infected place part of a district within the jurisdiction of another local authority with the previous consent in writing of that authority, but not otherwise.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, that this Amendment was unnecessary, even from the hon. Member for Birmingham's own point of view. The hon. Member had expressed his confidence in the discretion of the Privy Council; but he had omitted to observe that in the succeeding clauses the Privy Council had power to declare a place infected, to define the limits of the place, and to declare a district infected. Therefore, the object of the
  1904
  hon. Member was met, according to his own statement, by the three succeeding clauses of the Bill. He wished to say one word by way of appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite. They were told by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) that, in consequence of the concession made by the Government, hon. Members on his side of the House had no longer any desire to obstruct the Bill; they only desired to criticize it fairly. Now, he had not a word to say against the criticisms that had been made already; but, considering the time that these Amendments had occupied, considering also the number of Amendments still on the Paper, he was afraid they would have to sit there till the month of October.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYwished to know whether the hon. Member used the word "obstruction" in the sense in which it had been recently applied? [Mr. CHAPLIN: Certainly not.] He (Mr. J. W. Barclay) could only assure the Committee that his desire was to make the Bill an improvement on the existing state of matters. The question was, whether they were going to give the local authority discretion in this matter of declaring a place infected? He asked the Committee to recollect that one of the reasons given for this Bill was that there had been complaints as to the want of uniformity of action on the part of the local authorities; and it was understood that under this Bill they were going to dispense with all that, and lay down hard-and-fast rules, and make stringent regulations with regard to the diseases it dealt with. It was pointed out that this would cause a considerable amount of trouble to the farmers; but the reply was that the farmers were ready to submit to any inconvenience or stringency, in order to get rid of these diseases. But now that they were beginning to apply these stringent rules, and endeavouring to make the Bill more stringent and effective than the existing Act, they were met by the Representatives of the English farmers complaining of the inconvenience which they involved in cases of farms 2,000 acres in extent, or in such cases as that mentioned by the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease) of a farm two miles in extent. He (Mr. J. W. Barclay) maintained that the rules certainly ought to be applied to such cases. The pre-

  1905
  sumption was that pleuro-pneumonia had existed there for some time previous to its detection, and where the cattle on a farm of any extent had been mixing together, the presumption was against the whole herd. He therefore insisted that if this Bill was to be made at all effective, if it was to accomplish the objects intended—namely, to exterminate the diseases it professed to deal with—then they must have stringent regulations dealing with those diseases when discovered. This provision proposed to take effect when the disease of pleuro-pneumonia was discovered on the farm of any individual; and he thought it would be admitted by those who knew anything about the disease and its character, that if it was discovered on any part of a farm, the presumption should be that the disease existed upon the whole of that farm, and the land contiguous in the same occupation. He, therefore, thought that it was absolutely necessary, in order to carry out the professed objects of the Bill, that the clause should be made more stringent than it now stood.
  COLONEL RUGGLES-BRISEsaid, it was proposed to put the home trade and the foreign trade on precisely the same footing, and he thought it was a waste of time to argue otherwise.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he could not vote for the Amendment; but he thought that it would be absolutely necessary for the Government to give a more clear definition of what they proposed, and that when they got to the clause with regard to markets, it would be absolutely necessary that they should say distinctly what they were going to do. His hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) made a definition of the word "place;" but he thought it was too big a definition. It would include all the land adjoining the place where the disease broke out; but he thought that was too great a definition of "place." Also, he did not think the fact of land being in the same occupation had very much to do with the question. He, therefore, could not vote for the Amendment.
  MR. STORERsaid, that from the indefinite way in which the Amendment was worded, it would cause great inconvenience. Although land might be in the same occupation, there might be other occupations intervening. One occupation might consist of two farms, and
  1906
  both might be infected, and there might be intervening another place in another occupation which might not be infected.
  MR. MURPHYsaid, he wished to point out to the Secretary to the Treasury and to the Committee, one point in the clause which he thought had been entirely overlooked, and he could only suppose that it was never intended; but if his interpretation was the right one he feared it might lead to the greatest possible inconvenience, and to the total stoppage of the export trade from Ireland to England. The clause gave the local authority certain powers to declare a place infected with pleuro-pneumonia; and if the local authority were satisfied that the disease was in a particular place, they were bound to declare it an infected place. In the port of Cork they shipped from 50,000 to 60,000 head of cattle a-year, and they had a special cattle yard near the wharf. That yard was fitted up to receive the cattle for examination by the Government officer, and not a single head could be shipped unless it passed through the yard. The cattle were regularly examined by a veterinary surgeon, appointed under the sanction of the Privy Council, and the moment they left it, the place was disinfected and swept as clean as the floor of this House. And yet—if he was right in his construction of this clause—if the local Inspector stopped a beast, and, on examining it, found that it had pleuro-pneumonia, it was instantly sent away and killed; yet the fact of pleuro-pneumonia having been in the place at all made it necessary under this clause for the local Inspector to report the fact to the local authority, and the effect would be that the whole yard would be placed under absolute prohibition. From that time no beast could go in there, and not a single head of cattle could be shipped until the Privy Council chose to say—perhaps a week after—that they did not think that this was a place to come under the operation of the clause; and, during that week, 5,000 or 6,000 head of cattle would be debarred from exportation, and the trade absolutely disorganized. He did not wish to delay the Committee, but he submitted that he was perfectly justified in pointing out to the Committee and to the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury the consequences which might ensue if this clause were not looked into.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, that if they were to omit from the Amendment the words "adjoining or near," which were exceedingly vague, and substitute the words used in Section 34 of the Act of 1869, "other lands or buildings contiguous thereto in the same occupation," he thought the whole difficulty would be met. That would make the Bill uniform with existing legislation. It would place this Bill and the Act of 1869 on all-fours, and there had been no complaint that he was aware of respecting the latter Act in this particular.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he thought that the difficulty might be met by the omission of Sub-section 7. The previous sub-section effected the whole object that was aimed at by providing that in the event of a local authority including some place within the jurisdiction of another local authority, the local authority whose district was invaded should have an appeal to the Privy Council. He thought Sub-section 7 might very well be spared.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 144; Noes 33: Majority 111.—(Div. List, No. 225.)
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 17 (Declaration or extension of infected place in pleuro-pneumonia by Privy Council) agreed to.
  Clause 18 (Declaration of infected district in pleuro-pneumonia by Privy Council) agreed to.
  Clause 19 (Rules for pleuro-pneumonia) agreed to.
  Clause 20 (Declaration of freedom from pleuro-pneumonia) agreed to.
  Clause 21 (Slaughter in pleuro-pneumonia, and compensation out of local rates).
  MR. CHAPLIN MR. CHAPLIN moved, in page 8, line 27, at beginning, to insert the words "The Privy Council, or." He said that the Bill already gave the Privy Council power to declare a place infected, power to declare the limits of that place, and power to declare a district infected. Besides that, powers of all kinds were given to the Privy Council; and he thought that they ought also to have the power of slaughtering cattle affected with pleuro-pneumonia.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he thought the theory of the Bill with regard to pleuro-pneumonia was that the Privy Council should only interfere on the local authority failing to do its duty. But this Amendment placed the same duty on the Privy Council for all purposes, and created a double responsibility, and, if agreed to, might induce failure in both directions. If the Amendment was to be made effective, it should be worded to the effect that if the local authority failed to do its duty within two days, then the Privy Council should intervene. He should deprecate any division of responsibility in the first instance between the two bodies.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he was afraid he could not accept the Amendment, which conflicted with the whole principle on which they had been acting.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIR MR. LYON PLAYFAIR moved, in page 8, line 27, to insert—
  "The Privy Council under such safeguards as they deem fit may authorize experiments to be made in a district declared to he infected with pleuro-pneumonia with the view of giving protection to healthy animals, and may, for such purpose, authorize the retention and removal of live animals affected with pleuro-pneumonia."
  He said, his Amendment had the same object in view as Clause 29 of the Government Bill, and there was, therefore, no difference between them as to the intention. The only point which he wished to have brought out clearly was whether, in the opinion of the legal authorities, the clause as it stood would meet the case? The French Government had had a Commission for making experiments by inoculating animals affected with pleuro-pneumonia, and had spent £25,000 in pursuit of that inquiry. They found that the animals so inoculated with pleuro-pneumonia were protected from taking the disease, but that in the process 2 per cent of them died; and that mortality being equal to the mortality from pleuro-pneumonia, taking all the country together, they had been forced to the conclusion that there was no use carrying out such a system of inoculation. In Australia, also, experiments had been carried out; and in this country, too, there had been experiments on a smaller scale and on a different plan—namely, by inoculating the matter into

  1909
  the vein under the skin, and so at once getting the matter into the circulating blood. The animals thus experimented on in this country had shown no signs of the disease—or, at any rate, in so slight a form that it was impossible to detect any constitutional disturbance—although they had been kept close to animals which were undoubtedly affected with the disease. But these experiments had been tried on too small a scale to establish anything like a principle. Only eight or ten animals had been tried. At the same time, it would be a thousand pities if, by any measures of Parliament, they were to prevent such experiments, which might enable them to decide whether pleuro-pneumonia could be prevented by simple means. He therefore hoped that the Government would coincide with him in his desire to allow such experiments under such safeguards as the Privy Council might deem sufficient; and his only doubt was as to whether Clause 29 might or might not be sufficient for the purpose. He, yesterday, asked the Secretary to the Treasury to consult the Legal Advisers of the Government in order to see whether Clause 29 as it stood would answer all the purposes he had in view in moving this Amendment.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he had consulted the Legal Advisers of the Government on the point, and their opinion was that all the objects contemplated by his right hon. Friend would really be met by Clause 29. His right hon. Friend was aware that under Clause 29, power was reserved to the Privy Council to keep animals on farms or places where the infection broke out for the purposes of experiment and for the treatment of the disease. He had no wish at all to prevent any such experiments. He believed it might be very much in the interest of science that such experiments should be made, and the promoters of the Bill—that was, the Government—believed they had provided all that was necessary in that respect by inserting Clause 29. If his right hon. Friend considered it necessary to insert additional words, he should not object; but he believed those already in the Bill to be sufficient. In any case, however, he should object to the word "removal" in the latter part of the Amendment, as he believed that the use of that word might open the door to the
  1910
  removal of animals in a way that would spread the disease.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. SYNAN MR. SYNAN moved, in page 8, line 28, after the word "days," to insert the words "or such other time as Inspector may order." He said that different cases of pleuro-pneumonia were differently treated, and he thought some discretion ought to be left to the Inspector. No harm could be done, and some good might be done, by giving some discretion as to treatment. He, therefore, moved his Amendment.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he thought the Committee ought not to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member. There were already exceptions reserved to the Privy Council, who were the proper authority to deal with questions of treatment, and the great object they had in view was to stamp out the disease as quickly as possible. He thought, therefore, that it would be unwise to allow the Inspector any discretion in deciding upon the time during which an animal affected with the disease was to be kept before being slaughtered.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. ANDERSON MR. ANDERSON moved, in page 8, line 30, to leave out the words "may, if they think fit," and insert "shall." He said, he thought his Amendment would test the sincerity of those hon. Members who said the farmers were willing to submit to all reasonable restrictions in regard to the home trade. The Bill provided that in cases of cattle plague the Privy Council should slaughter animals that had been in contact with other animals affected with that disease; but in cases of pleuro-pneumonia a different system was pursued. In the latter case, it was left entirely to the discretion of the local authority. The result would be that this disease, incubating sometimes for a period of 56 days before it was discovered, would have infected the whole of the herd with which the diseased animal had been in contact. Notwithstanding that, they were not to be killed, and thus every animal of the herd became a centre of disease. If the object of the Bill really was to stamp out disease, there was no way of doing it but by ordering peremptory slaughter in such cases.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, that if the hon. Member really thought that his Amendment would test the sincerity of those who said that the farmers were ready to accept all reasonable restrictions, he was afraid he would be disappointed, for this was not a reasonable restriction. On the contrary, it was a most unreasonable one. Cattle plague and pleuro-pneumonia were two widely different things. Animals hardly ever recovered from cattle plague; from pleuro-pneumonia they constantly recovered. He therefore thought that the restriction was one which the Government ought not to accept.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he entirely agreed with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid-Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin). He was of opinion that such an extreme measure as compulsory slaughter ought not to be adopted in any but extreme circumstances. Cattle plague was an extreme circumstance, and there, he was afraid, they must resort to compulsory slaughter in every case. But pleuro-pneumonia was entirely different; and, with respect to that disease, it appeared from what they had heard that night, that there was reason to hope that the resources of science might be equal to the emergency, and that sooner or later some certain cure would be discovered.
  MR. STARKIEsaid, an instance had come under his own observation, in which a farmer, who was also a butcher, slaughtered an animal affected with pleuro-pneumonia, and yet not another animal of the herd with which it had been associated was afterwards similarly affected. With such an instance within his own knowledge, he could not consent to a proposal for the compulsory slaughter of a whole herd because one of the herd had been affected with pleuro-pneumonia.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, pleuro-pneumonia was very different when the disease broke out upon a farm to when it broke out among a cargo of foreign cattle. If, in the latter case, an animal was discovered to be infected, it was impossible to keep the remainder of the cargo for 56 days to determine how many of them had been infected on the voyage. In the case of home cattle, however, it was quite a practical proceeding. This explained the different treatment in the two cases, without imputing any partiality.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONcould not accept the Amendment, and the reasons given appeared to him sufficient.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, as the hon. Member for Forfar (Mr. J. W. Barclay) was the only Member of the bucolic party who had shown any sincere desire to impose such restrictions upon the home trade as would be effective, and as he disapproved of the Amendment, he (Mr. Anderson) would not press it upon the Committee. But, at the same time, if it was intended to stamp out disease—and that was the ground taken up by Professor Brown, and others—he maintained it could not be done except by slaughter.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. SYNAN MR. SYNAN moved, in page 8, line 31, after "herd," to insert "being in the same field or place." The use of the word "herd" might have a very wide application, and might be understood to refer to the whole of the cattle on a farm. A herd might be a large one, and spread over several fields; and he could not suppose it was intended to include the whole number. He proposed, therefore, the insertion of the words given.
  THE CHAIRMANpointed out that there was another Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member, and which he would be precluded from moving should he now pass it over.
  MR. SYNANsaid, it was not his intention to move that; but it was in order to define the number of cattle he made his suggestion, and with the same object he intended further on to move that the number of cattle should be indicated by the Inspector.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, this sub-section of the clause was to give a discretionary power to the local authority to decide what number of cattle should be slaughtered if disease broke out amongst the herd. He did not think the use of the term "herd" would have the effect suggested, or that it would be necessary to adopt the words proposed.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYpointed out that it was a discretionary, not a compulsory, power to be placed in the hands of the local authority, and there was not the slightest risk of their carrying their power too far.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. SYNANthen moved the insertion, in the same line, after the word "or," the words "so many of the cattle as the Inspector may order." To this, in his mind, there seemed no objection; but he did not know the opinion of the Secretary to the Treasury.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, the introduction of the words, though they did not materially alter the sense, at all events did not improve the English, of the clause.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CHAPLIN MR. CHAPLIN moved, in page 8, line 33, at beginning, to insert "the Privy Council or." His object was to provide the compensation for animals slaughtered for pleuro-pneumonia out of monies voted by Parliament, instead of from the local rates. It was quite clear that, if pleuro-pneumonia was to be effectually stamped out, a great number of animals must be slaughtered. He had heard of a great number of outbreaks, and so, as the Bill stood, a large amount for compensation would fall upon the local rates. He commended this to the attention of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell), who was Chairman of the Taxation Committee. He remembered that at the time the Conservative Party were not in the fortunate position they now occupied, a Resolution was brought forward, asserting—
  "That it was unjust to impose taxation for national objects on one description of property only."
  That Resolution was introduced by an hon. Baronet now on the Treasury Bench (Sir Massey Lopes). He (Mr. Chaplin) did not suppose he would have the adhesion of hon. Gentlemen opposite, who objected to the payment of compensation out of Imperial funds; but unless it could be shown that when slaughter for pleuro-pneumonia was insisted upon it was not in pursuance of a national object, then he was entitled to claim the support of the right hon. Gentlemen below, and those who voted for the Resolution in 1872. He relied, also, on the support of the Chairman of the Local Taxation Committee.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, with regard to compensation, there was a distinct difference between the slaughter of cattle for cattle plague and slaughter for pleuro-pneumonia. If it
  1914
  had been proposed to charge compensation in respect to the latter disease upon the Imperial funds, that proposal could only be justified by the adoption of the same precautions as were practised in cases of cattle plague. That was, that officials of the Government, directed by the Privy Council, should undertake the management of the disease and the slaughter of animals infected. It was not thought right to charge the compensation upon the Imperial funds when the slaughter of animals was left to the discretion of the local authority. That was the reason Government had for drawing the clause, and why he could not allow the Amendment of his hon. Friend.
  MR. PELLsaid, his hon. Friend had referred to him and to that famous Resolution brought in some years ago. In quoting that Resolution, the hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) had left out a passage at the end, which contained something more specific, and distinctly raised the position as to when charges should fall on the Exchequer and on local rates. He had observed most faithfully the terms of that Resolution, and he had resisted every attempt at the application of funds from the Exchequer to other objects, such as a direct grant for the maintenance of roads, just as he did now when it was sought to take compensation from Government money for the slaughter of animals having pleuro-pneumonia. And there was another reason against the proposal. In the case of rinderpest, that was a foreign disease, and the State took upon itself to stamp it out. At the present moment, they had not got the disease in England; and if the State acted with rigour and discretion it would be kept out, or if admitted, be confined to such narrow limits that no very large charge would be imposed upon the Imperial Exchequer. But if the proposal of his hon. Friend were accepted, there was reason to apprehend a good deal of jobbery. There would be no end of applications made for public money, and some difficulty in distinguishing between ordinary lung complaints and pleuro-pneumonia. The country would have to be covered with Veterinary Inspectors, and there would be a heavy expense, not commensurate with any benefit owners might derive from the acceptation of the Amendment. He hoped his hon. Friend, with whom he usually

  1915
  acted in concert, would be good enough to withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, a short time before the hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) deprecated the protraction of the debate; it was to be hoped, therefore, he would consent to withdraw.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, if he thought there was the slightest prospect of success he would press his Amendment. As, however, the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) withheld his support, he had little hope of sufficient support from the rest of the Committee, and a division would be an useless waste of time. Still, he wished to place on record his individual opinion that when the slaughter of animals was for a national purpose, Members on that side of the House would be true to their principles, if they inserted his Amendment in the Bill. On the other side, an opinion had been declared, that only when the amount was a large one should it fall on the local rates.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN MR. CHAMBERLAIN moved the omission of the words "the local rate," from line 33, and the insertion of the words—
  "A special rate, to be assessed and levied in the nature of a capitation or poll-tax, according to the number of cattle possessed by any person within the county at the time of slaughter."
  He had not put this Amendment down in the first instance, because he anticipated that the decision of the Committee upon the first would settle the other cases raised. He did not wish to trouble the Committee with a repetition of his arguments; but, in the course of the earlier discussion, many hon. Members—among them, he thought, the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read), and certainly the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster)—accepted those arguments, but objected that pleuro-pneumonia and foot-and-mouth disease differed materially from cattle plague, and he would be glad to give those hon. Gentlemen the opportunity of voting with him now. The hon. Member for South Norfolk said the proposal was a fair one to make in respect to diseases having their origin in this country, but would not be a fair law dealing with cattle plague, a disease which always
  1916
  came in from other lands. It was not to be supposed he was alluding to pleuro-pneumonia and foot-and-mouth disease, for these had been so long in the country that they might be considered permanent here. Probably many hon. Members were absent when his previous Amendment was under consideration, and a few words might be permitted to show the grounds of his contention. He contended—and, unfortunately, he had been misunderstood by the hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin)—that in no other case was there a precedent for compensation being given for the result of an accident, or for a visitation of Providence; and he had mentioned that if the General Omnibus Company lost all its horses from an epidemic, there would be no claim allowed on the public fund, as an illustration of his statement. It was an illustration in point; but when the hon. Member said—''Suppose the horses of the General Omnibus Company were requisitioned for State service, would there not be a fair claim for compensation?" Certainly there would; and he would be the first to demand it as their due. But to be a parallel case the cattle must be healthy cattle, and requisitioned for the use of the Army, or other Government purposes, and then he would agree full value should be paid. The next point in his argument was, that in no case did the Legislature allow compensation where it imposed obligations on individuals; and he had given the Education Act as an instance, where an obligation was imposed upon individuals for the benefit of the community, yet the community did not compensate individuals, but the latter were required to pay the cost of the obligation imposed upon them. Another instance was found in the Mines Regulation Act, where new obligations were imposed upon a particular class of tradesmen; but they were not, therefore, compensated by the State. If his view was right, then no case could be made out for compensation to farmers, unless on the ground of payment for service rendered. It could not be made out that the animals slaughtered would live after taking the disease; and if not slaughtered, they would be a source of danger to the remainder. The only plea on which the case could be sustained was that of payment for early information, so that the authorities might take measures to prevent the spread of

  1917
  disease. The taxation, then, should fall upon the owners of cattle. Sooner or later the cost would come out of the pockets of consumers; but, in the first instance, the burden should be borne by those most interested.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, before the Question was put, as he had been alluded to, he desired to say that he did not vote for the Amendment on the previous division, and he should not do so now. The principle was just; but he could not see how it could be carried out at present. If compensation reached a very large amount, Parliament might be obliged to apply the principle.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYhoped the hon. Member would be satisfied with having made his speech a second time. True, some Members had not been present on both occasions; but he had, and so had many more. Having repeated his speech, he hoped the hon. Member would be content without a division.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINdid not wish to put the Committee to the trouble of dividing; but he claimed from hon. Members the courtesy of an answer.
  MR. CLARE READsaid, as he had been referred to, he would say that as to the previous Amendment of the hon. Member, he thought his argument could not apply, and even in this Amendment was extremely bad.
  MR. CHAPLINthought the argument of the hon. Member turned upon the definition of what was "a visitation of Providence." He called compulsory slaughter a visitation of Providence; but he (Mr. Chaplin) regarded it as a visitation of the Privy Council.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, earlier in the evening, he had heard statements from the other side that cattle plague was an imported disease, but that pleuro-pneumonia and foot-and-mouth disease were indigenous. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) had accepted the distinction; and when it was said that he had made his speech before, it must be remembered he applied his arguments to a different disease. It might be said that the late Mr. John Stuart Mill made the same speech before; and it was to be regretted that the principles he inculcated had not taken a stronger hold in the House. He (Mr. Mundella) felt quite sure that, with the exception of this class, no manufactures would be allowed to have the advantage of this
  1918
  system of compensation. The production of beef for the market was as much a manufacture as that of iron or of calico; and those engaged in the trade should accept the losses and contingencies just the same. He hoped his hon. Friend would go to a division, for the principle could not be impressed too strongly.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON moved, in page 8, after line 33, to insert the words—
  "(3.) The local authority shall out of the local rate pay compensation as follows for cattle slaughtered under this section:—
  (i.) Where the animal slaughtered was affected with pleuro-pneumonia, the compensation shall be three-fourths of its value immediately before it became so affected, but so that the compensation do not in any such case exceed thirty pounds.
  (ii.) In every other case the compensation shall be the value of the animal immediately before it was slaughtered, but so that the compensation do not in any case exceed forty pounds."
  MR. J. W. BARCLAY MR. J. W. BARCLAY moved to amend the Amendment, by leaving out from the words "section," in line 2, to the word "animal," in line 8, inclusive, in order to insert the words—
  "Three-fourths of the loss arising from the slaughter of the animal, based on its value immediately before it became affected with disease, and, if not so affected."
  According to the arrangement in the Government proposal, the compensation for the slaughter of an animal suffering from pleuro-pneumonia was fixed at three-fourths the value of that when healthy; and in the cases of animals slaughtered after being in contact with diseased animals, it was proposed to give the full value. If they made the compensation depend upon the absolute loss, compensating the owner by giving him three-fourths of the actual loss sustained—namely, the value of the animal before slaughter, less the proceeds of the carcase, he thought the farmers would receive ample compensation.
  Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment,
  To leave out from the word "section," in line 2, to the word "animal," in line 8, inclusive, in order to insert the words "Three-fourths of the loss arising from the slaughter of the animal, based on its value immediately before it became affected with disease, and, if not so affected,"—(Mr. James Barclay.)
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONcould not accept the proposal of the hon. Member, as he did not think the definition of the loss contained in the Amendment was the proper one. The compensation was for the loss the owner would sustain, rather than for the value of the animal slaughtered.
  MR. CLARE READquite agreed with the principle enunciated by his hon. Friend (Mr. J. W. Barclay). In Norfolk they always compensated for the loss rather than the value. The feeling of the Committee was, he believed, strongly against this proposal; and he hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Forfarshire would not press it. The 29th clause authorized the Privy Council
  "to withhold compensation or other payment in respect of an animal slaughtered under this Act by their respective order, where the owner or the person having charge thereof has, in their respective judgment, been guilty, in relation to the animal, of an offence against this Act, or where the animal, being a foreign animal, was, in their respective judgment, diseased at the time of its landing."
  The clause also provided that
  "if, in any case, the sum received by the Privy Council or the local authority on sale of a carcase exceeds the amount paid for compensation to the owner of the animal slaughtered, the Privy Council or local authority, as the case may be, shall pay that excess to the owner, after deduction of reasonable expenses."
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYcalled attention to the fact that the proposal contained in his Amendment was a proposal which was recommended by the Committee of 1873, after their attention had been specially directed to the subject. His right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) was Chairman of the Committee; and it reported that, in the interests of the farmers themselves, and also in the interests of the public, the compensation ought to be based upon the loss. There was no more difficulty in ascertaining the loss than in fixing the value of the animal. It was the practice now followed in Aberdeenshire and Forfarshire, and, he was informed, also in Norfolk, in all cases where animals were slaughtered in consequence of disease.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that as he understood the proposition, it went further than his hon. Friend had stated—namely, that in the case of an animal slaughtered in consequence of having been infected with pleuro-pneumonia, three-fourths of the loss, based on the
  1920
  value immediately before it became affected with disease, and, if not so affected, immediately before it was slaughtered—should be paid to the owner. He (Mr. W. E. Forster) thought that where an animal was compulsorily slaughtered which had not absolutely got the disease—considering that pleuro-pneumonia was a very curable disease, and it was by no means certain that all the animals on a farm would take it, the compensation, if awarded at all, should be the full value.
  Question put, "That the words '(i.) Where the animal slaughtered' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 236; Noes 34: Majority 202.—(Div. List, No. 226.)
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG moved, in page 8, after line 41, to insert—
  "(3.) A local authority may require the value of any animal slaughtered under this Act to be ascertained by officers of the local authority o by arbitration, and generally may impose conditions as to evidence of the slaughter and value of the animals slaughtered."
  He thought it would be a wholesome thing to see that the owners of the animals slaughtered did not obtain more than their full value.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONcould not consent to the introduction of these words. The Committee had already determined that a sum should be paid to the owners for the compulsory slaughter of an animal as an inducement to him to make known the existence of disease. If there was to be any doubt upon the point, the inducement would not be sufficiently strong. Such a stipulation as that proposed to be introduced did not exist in the old law, and one of the objects of amending the old law was to introduce an element of greater certainty.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYbelieved that the adoption of the Amendment would defeat the object of the Bill. It would certainly introduce uncertainty. The owners of the cattle would never know what compensation they would get, and would feel themselves at the mercy and discretion of the authorities.
  MR. WHITWELLthought the Amendment was simply an amplification of the previous section, and enabled the authorities to ascertain the value of the cattle which, to a great extent, would depend upon the kind of cattle.
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGsaid, that as the Amendment did not meet with the approval of the Committee, he would withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. MURPHYwished to point out to the Committee, before they passed the clause, that it might probably work an injustice. In 1876, an Act was passed for Ireland, giving somewhat analogous powers in cases of pleuro-pneumonia to those which existed in England, and requiring that the local authority should pay to the owner of the cattle the value of the animals slaughtered. By a Proviso introduced to one of the clauses of that Act, it was made applicable to ports of export in Ireland, and for a very obvious reason. If animals were found in Dublin, Cork, or Belfast, affected with disease, the local authority was bound to pay the value; but it was a manifest injustice for the locality to pay at the port of shipping for the value of an animal which might have been brought from some place 50 or 60 miles away. To meet that case of injustice, a Proviso was added, providing always it was proved that in respect of any animal for which compensation was required, it was brought within seven days into the Union solely for the purpose of being shipped, and that the owner had not been guilty of any act in contravention of the Orders of the Privy Council. In that case, the Chief or Under Secretary of State might order payment of compensation in respect of such animal. The present clause, as it stood, virtually repealed the Irish Act of 1876; but, unless it contained a Proviso similar to that introduced into the Irish Act, a manifest injustice would be done. It appeared to him that a Proviso to this effect should be added to the sections printed in the Bill in red letters. He would suggest that so much of Section 14 of the Cattle Diseases (Ireland) Act, as provided payment to the local authorities of the money disbursed by them under the said Act, should continue in full force and effect. He should be perfectly satisfied if the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) would promise to give consideration to the facts of the case upon the Report.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONassented.
  Amendment agreed to.
  On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill?"
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he wished, before the clause passed, as it was the last of the pleuro-pneumonia clauses, to ask a question of the Secretary to the Treasury as to the whole operation of these clauses. A "place" was to be declared, and also a "district;" but he thought there was an omission in the Bill in not defining what a district was. In Clause 9, there was a definition of a district which applied to Part II. of the Bill; but he did not take it that it went further. No such definition was given in regard to cases of pleuro-pneumonia; and, although power was taken to extend the limits of a district, there was no power to contract them. As the Bill stood, the whole of a county or of a borough would be a district for pleuro-pneumonia. He wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if that was his intention? If the clause and stipulations in the Schedule were carried out, no animal could be moved out of the county of Norfolk, for instance, if pleuro-pneumonia broke out in Norfolk. The same thing would apply to any animal coming into Liverpool, say from Ireland, infected with pleuro-pneumonia; no animal then could get out of Liverpool, except there were exemptions made which it would be very inconvenient to make. He wished to point that out. He had no desire to obstruct the Bill; but he considered this a matter which would have to be very seriously looked into; and he thought, also, that they ought to know about it, not to-night, but before they left Committee. They ought certainly to know what was intended to be the definition of the district for pleuro-pneumonia.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYconsidered it would be advisable to leave out districts for pleuro-pneumonia, and to make the Act more stringent as regarded places.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) had asked him what was intended to be the definition of the word "district?" It would be left to the local authority to define what was a district, and what

  1923
  should be its limits and so forth. He would, however, look further into the matter, as the right hon. Gentleman had suggested; and before Report he thought he should be able absolutely to tell the right hon. Gentleman the meaning of district.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERwas sorry to persist, but he thought they must have an answer, not necessarily now, but before the Report. Perhaps they could get it when they came to the 27th clause, because they must, in Committee, try to settle what would be these regulations; and it was only fair they should know pretty thoroughly what was the nature of the home regulations, before they came to the foreign regulations. He thought the Secretary to the Treasury would find there was no power given to the local authority to define the district. There was a sort of limit given in Sub-section 9 of Clause 16, which made him think that the Government did not intend the district to be that which by the Bill it was defined to be, the whole county or borough. In Subsection 9 of Clause 16, it said—
  "The local authority shall forthwith report to the Privy Council the declaration of the Inspector, and the proceedings of the local authority thereon, and shall state whether or not it is, in their opinion, expedient that an infected district, comprising the infected place, shall be declared, and, if so, what should, in their opinion, be the limits of that district."
  He took it that the Act of Parliament gave them power to express an opinion, but not to define a district, if it was without the power of the Privy Council to comply with that opinion. Most certainly, as the Bill stood, there was only one definition of district. The Bill distinctly said—"Any district shall be as described by the Schedule;" and there was absolutely no power given to the Privy Council to make a less district than the district described.
  Clause agreed to.

  Foot-and-mouth Disease.
  Clause 22 (Declaration of infected place in foot-and-mouth disease by local authority).
  Mr. SYNAN Mr. SYNAN moved, in page 9, line 3, after "place," to insert "not being a fair, or market-place, or wharf." He had already moved this Amendment on
  1924
  a previous part of the Bill; and he would really like to know what the opinion of the Secretary to the Treasury was in respect to it. It was for the purpose, more or less, of defining the word "place," and it had reference particularly to Ireland. If, in the case of Ireland, a "place" was intended to apply to a fair, the cattle trade of the whole country would be greatly endangered. By chance an Inspector, who might not be a professional person, might, on the morning of a fair, come to the place and declare a certain animal to be affected with foot-and-mouth disease. He could immediately serve a notice on the occupier of the close in which the fair was held, and that place at once became an infected district. What were they to do with all the cattle of that infected place? They could not be removed, and all because it might happen to be an ignorant Inspector who had declared an animal to be affected with foot-and-mouth disease. His Amendment was that a place should not include "a fair, market-place, or wharf," all of which stood in a like position. This was a difficulty which ought to be removed; and if the Secretary to the Treasury wished for time for consideration—say until to-morrow—he would be glad to postpone it; but he thought that it was too long to leave this subject until the Report.
  MAJOR NOLANstrongly supported the Amendment, remarking that if "place" did include a fair, the great fairs of Ireland would be very injuriously affected. At the Ballinasloe fair there were something like 16,000 head of cattle; and if it was competent for an Inspector to declare the fair-ground an infected place, it would be impossible to know what should be done with this large stock. The whole thing would be reduced to an absurdity, the Privy Council would have to step in, the fair would be spoiled, and rents would be difficult to collect—in fact, the whole agricultural system of Ireland would be disturbed. There were other large and important fairs in Ireland, which it ought not to be in the power of the local authority to disturb in the way mentioned.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, the words were not necessary, inasmuch as such matters would practically be controlled by the Privy Council,

  1925
  Under these circumstances, the Amendment was unnecessary; and, therefore, he could not consent to it without further consideration.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERwas sorry to say that left them completely in the dark as to what the Government intended to do in regard to foot-and-mouth disease. The Government had said, in reference to the treatment of foreign animals, that they meant to regulate the slaughter according to the prevalence of disease—including foot-and-mouth disease—in the country exporting the cattle; and they had acknowledged that they did not intend to do that except, at the same time, regulations were made at home. They must know, in such a very important matter as this, what the regulations were to be. If the Committee would refer to the evidence of Professors Brown and Simonds, they would find these gentlemen at once went to the difficulty of a market; and they said that one great difficulty in stamping out foot-and-mouth disease would be to know how to deal with it when it was found in a market. The hon. Gentleman the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) was perfectly aware of that difficulty, because both in the House and out of it he had dealt with it; he had said he was so aware of it that he would be inclined to stop the market at Norfolk if disease broke out there. He (Mr. W. E. Forster) wanted to know what the Government intended to do in this matter—whether they intended that a market was to be an infected place as regarded foot-and-mouth disease, if so declared by the local authority? If the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury would leave absolute discretion to the Privy Council as regarded foreign animals he would support him; but the Amendment the hon. Gentleman (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) had put down provided that, in case of animals coming from a foreign country, the Privy Council was to act accordingly as foot-and-mouth disease prevailed in that country. He desired to be informed whether the Privy Council were to act accordingly as it was prevalent in a market-place or on a wharf? This was a matter which ought to be explained with as little delay as possible; and he agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had moved the Amendment (Mr. Synan), that it was too long to wait until the
  1926
  Report before an explanation was afforded.
  THE O'CONOR DONsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had said, he did not see any necessity for this Amendment. Did he see any objection to it? Either the Government intended that the word "place" should include market-place or fair, or they did not. If they did not intend that a market-place, or fair, should be included, what objection could there be to adopting the words of his hon. Friend, which would make the point clear? To him there seemed to be a doubt about it, otherwise the Government would adopt the Amendment.
  MR. PAGET, in order to meet the difficulty, suggested that after the word "place," the words should be inserted which were to be found in Sub-section 7 of Clause 26—namely—"in the possession or occupation or under the control of the owner of the animal." If those words were inserted, it would make it perfectly clear what the meaning of the word "place" was. As there was an Amendment before the Committee, he would suggest that it should be withdrawn; and he ventured to think that the acceptance of the words he proposed would have the effect that was desired.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman did not put matters in a better position than the Amendment of the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan), inasmuch as it had the same object—namely, the exemption of fairs and markets from the control of the Inspector. It had been said that it was quite as important that the regulations in respect to foot-and-mouth disease should be as strict as those in reference to pleuro-pneumonia, and that local Inspectors should have power to act where it was found to exist. Hon. Members from Ireland began to think that the Bill was going to pinch them, and now they wanted matters to be arranged in their favour. No English or Scotch Member had attempted to obtain an exemption for English and Scotch fairs and markets; and he did not think it proper that there should be an exemption given to Irish fairs. The three countries ought to be dealt with alike; and he was of opinion that the Irish Members would do well to accept what the English and Scotch Members

  1927
  were willing to accept for England and Scotland.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONreminded the Committee that, on previous occasions, the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan) had consented to withdraw his Amendment similar to the present one, on his (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) promising to move it on Report if he was convinced of its advisability. Under those circumstances, he could not consent to the alteration now proposed; but he would do with regard to it as he had said he would do with respect to the other Amendments. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford had said that the Committee must know what the Privy Council were to do. He would remind the Committee that the effect of the right hon. Gentleman's argument up to one portion of the Bill was to trust implicitly in the Privy Council; but, as soon as trust was placed in the Privy Council, the right hon. Gentleman turned round and said—"We must know what the Privy Council has to do." The right hon. Gentleman compared the action of the Government with regard to foreign animals and the home trade. There was a considerable difference between dealing with disease in a foreign country over which they had no control, and a country which was absolutely under their control. In the case of foreign trade, where they had no means of following what was happening in a particular district, they did require greater knowledge of what was happening than they did in the regulations dealing with the home trade. Although he considered the clause sufficient to meet the case, he would promise to consider the matter.
  SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, that as the Bill now stood it was perfectly contradictory, and there must be a determination by the Government which course they intended to take. Until the definition of "place" was afforded by the Government, the Committee were reasonable in pressing their request. The hon. Member for Limerick very properly desired that a fair, market-place, or wharf, should be excluded from the meaning of the word "place." If his Amendment was not carried, without doubt, place would include "fair, market-place, or wharf." The statements made by the hon. Baronet did not go to hoist the
  1928
  authority of the local authority under Clause 22. Express authority had been given to the local authority to perform particular duty in Ireland; and they would not successfully hoist their jurisdiction by giving general power to the Privy Council to make general rules and regulations. If the Government desired to be consistent, they must accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Limerick.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that under the law at this moment local authorities could close fairs and markets, and he could not see with what object such a power could be taken away. Instead of taking the power away, the exercise of that power should be made compulsory by the Privy Council. He had heard nothing inconsistent with the local authority being so armed in what had fallen from Her Majesty's Government. He could see no reason for exempting Ireland—and what was necessary for England was equally necessary for Ireland—and no case had been made out to exempt the latter country from provisions already in force here.
  MR. SYNANwas quite willing to give full power to the Privy Council.
  MAJOR NOLANsaw no objection to the Privy Council having authority; but the powers were too large to be placed in the hands of the local authority. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) said, why not agree to what had been done in England and Scotland? and, so far as markets were concerned, there was a good deal of sense in that, for Irish markets were not more important than those of England. But when fairs came to be considered, then the case was very different, and the Irish system was ten times as important as the English. That was the reason the Amendment was pressed. Not only would the whole agricultural system, but almost the social system, would break down, if fairs were stopped. Indeed, he did not know how he should face his constituents if fairs, such as that of Ballinasloe, were stopped, and had not done his utmost to prevent it. They would consider that one of the most important interests with which he had been charged had been neglected. He hoped, therefore, the Amendment would be pressed. If the Privy Council held the power, and, after hearing the evidence as to the presence of foot-and-mouth

  1929
  disease, came to the determination to stop the fair, well and good; but if the power was vested in the local authority, it would lead to the greatest confusion in Ireland.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONcalled the attention of the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) to a clause which he appeared to have overlooked. He referred to Clause 26, which gave the Privy Council power to override the authority of the local authority. The 3rd and 4th sub-sections provided that, from time to time, the Privy Council might, by Special Orders, control the action of the local authorities in cases where cattle were
  "exposed for sale, or exhibited in a market, fair, sale yard, place of exhibition, or other place; or while placed in a lair, or other place, before exposure for sale."
  And then the section went on—
  "The Privy Council shall, by General Orders under this section, from time to time make such provisions as they think fit for the consequences under this Act."
  As he understood the clause, this would distinctly override the action of the local authority.
  SIR HENRY JAMESknew that nothing was more distasteful to the House than a legal discussion; but if the Bill was to be framed, words must be discussed, and unless they gave up their functions, the discussion could not be avoided. He could not agree with the Secretary to the Treasury, whose explanation did not seem to meet what had been pointed out by the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan) and the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan), that local authorities might walk into a fair and exercise their power at once, after receiving the declaration of their Inspector. The Secretary to the Treasury had referred to the action the Privy Council might or might not take. This was not sufficient to override the local powers, with whom, when once the declaration of their Inspector was received, action was immediate. What the hon. Baronet referred to—that the Privy Council might, from time to time—[Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: Should.]—he (Sir Henry James) was reading from Section 3—
  "The Privy Council may, from time to time, by Special Orders under this section relating to particular places, make such provision as they
  1930
  think fit for the consequences aforesaid with regard to those places."
  But suppose the Privy Council did not interfere? The hon. Baronet wished to refer to Sub-section 3, but that gave the powers to make General Orders for all places suspected of disease. That was a General Order, not a Provisional Order. An Inspector might go into a fair and exercise his jurisdiction before the Privy Council could act. In that way he submitted the explanations of the Secretary to the Treasury did not meet the objections raised.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTwas anxious that his hon. Friend should state what was the intention of the clause. What he wished to know was, had the local authorities the power to stop fairs or markets? In dealing with this clause he desired to have that distinctly stated. His hon. Friend said there would not be that power; then, if so, why not introduce words having clearly that effect? If that power rested solely with the Privy Council, then local authorities would understand what they were about. He also wished to hear an explanation of words of an ominous import which fell from the hon. Gentleman in reference to Ireland. He insisted that England and Ireland should be placed on exactly the same footing as regarded foot-and-mouth disease.
  MR. DODSONthought the force of Clause 22 had not been seen quite. There seemed to be an impression that there was a discretionary power placed in the local authority; but he did not think the section covered that meaning—
  "Where it appears to an Inspector of a local authority that foot-and-mouth disease exists, or has within ten days existed, in a cowshed, or other place,"
  —which, as he understood, meant fair or market—
  "he shall forthwith make and sign a declaration thereof. He shall serve a notice, signed by him, of that declaration, on the occupier of that cowshed, field, or other place; and thereupon that cowshed, field, or other place shall become and be a place infected. … and the local authority, if satisfied of the correctness of the Inspector's declaration, shall proceed to deal with, this place as infected."
  This was imperative—the word was "shall," and the place, be it fair or market, became a place infected. No optional power being given, it must be

  1931
  done; and then the place was left to the mercy of the Privy Council, who might, under Clause 26, release the place from the ban. If it was not so, then the case was worse than he supposed; and he should like to hear the hon. Gentleman's explanation. Would the 26th clause give the Privy Council power to override the local authority or not? [Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONL: Yes, beforehand.] He (Mr. Dodson) would be glad to know the section of the Bill under which that took place. As he read the 22nd clause, the power was compulsory on the local authority.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONwas sorry he had not made his meaning distinct. He understood the case thus—As soon as the Bill became law, the Privy Council were bound by Clause 26 to make, as soon as possible after the passing of the Act—which meant immediately—General Orders dealing with several things, one of these being what should be done in the case of animals exposed in markets, fairs, or places of exhibition. Those Orders, when made, were to have full effect, notwithstanding other provisions in the Bill. Then, to come to Clause 22. Under that clause the Inspector would have the power to declare, or must declare, when any place was infected, subject to his other instructions, to the local authority. But Clause 26 distinctly overrode the action under Clause 22 under certain cases, and the Orders of the Privy Council would guide the Inspector.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the Committee had got into a legal debate, and he could not help thinking his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) was correct in his view. But to go off on the question of policy. The Secretary to the Treasury said that absolute discretion was given to the Privy Council in the matter. If the discretion in regard to foot-and-mouth disease were the same as that in force for the foreign trade, he would be quite content to leave it there; but he did not think it was fair that they should be told by the Government that the foreign regulations depended upon the home regulations, and that Government should avoid giving information of what they would do in one of the most important of home regulations. He was sure the Secretary to the Treasury would not deny, or the
  1932
  hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) dispute, the statement, when he said that whether they did or did not get rid of foot-and-mouth disease depended as much as anything what was done in reference to the disease when discovered in markets. The Secretary to the Treasury said, trust to the discretion of the Government; and he replied, did the Government mean to interfere with fairs and markets? Then they were to wait until Clause 26 was reached, and then for the issue of the Privy Council Orders. He did not know what was going to be done; and he fully believed the reason was that Government had not, in the slightest degree, made up their own minds how they would deal with markets, or knew, in the slightest degree, what direction their action would take. He did not ask for a definite statement; but he wished to know if markets were or were not to be interfered with when foot-and-mouth disease was found? Unless strict regulations were to be made in this respect, the foot-and-mouth regulations might as well be struck out of the Bill altogether.
  MR. CLARE READsaid, there was no doubt whatever that cattle in fairs, markets, or in transit could not be dealt with as they could be treated at home. When the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan) and others spoke of Ireland being so different to England in the matter of fairs, he could not quite agree with that. There were large fairs held in England—at Barnet, for instance—and there were many others held in fields. What he wanted to know was, in what way fairs and markets were going to be treated? It certainly would be impossible to treat cattle under those circumstances as they might be treated on the farm. At the fair at Ballinasloe, and elsewhere, they could not be kept for even 14 days. The treatment must be different, and the question was, what was it to be?
  MR. DODSON, after hearing the explanation of Clause 26, and the manner in which it was to be put into operation, could not understand the objection to the adoption of the Amendment to Clause 22; because, according to the Secretary to the Treasury, as soon as the Act was passed, the Privy Council would lose no time in making General Orders respecting its operation in

  1933
  fairs and markets, and those instructions would override Clause 22, so far as markets and fairs were concerned. If the action of the Inspector was to depend upon Orders in Council under Clause 26, he could not see what objection there was in accepting the Amendment that Clause 22 should not apply to fairs.
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, the effect of the clause would be to throw fairs in Ireland into a state of the utmost uncertainty and confusion. Where large fairs were held, at which, perhaps, there were as many as 16,000 cattle and 70,000 sheep, there was considerable preparation to be made. If these fairs were liable to be stopped at any moment, the greatest inconvenience and mischief would be the result. The cattle having been brought together, would be suddenly distributed again, harm would be done, and much uncertainty created. It appeared to him there should be a regulation requiring the authorities to give notice some days beforehand that the fair was not to be held. There should not be the momentary doubt of the fair being held; and it would be better to go on with the fair than to scatter the germs of disease about the country.
  MR. CHAPLINagreed with the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) and the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read), as to the necessity of knowing what was going to be the course adopted as regarded fairs. He thought it would be for the convenience of the Committee and the Government if the latter would give an undertaking to consider the question to-morrow, or when the 26th clause was reached.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONforesaw great difficulties in taking away the entire power of Inspectors to deal with fairs and markets. The 22nd clause was subject to the provisions of the 26th; but if the power were struck out absolutely from the 22nd, a difficulty would arise. The regulations issued might have reference to a particular fair, and the part of that fair might be set apart as infected, the rest of the animals being kept apart in some way. He was only suggesting that might possibly be one of the Orders. If any alterations were made, they should be made on Clause 26. The whole thing turned on the powers becoming statutory in that
  1934
  clause, and they would then override Clause 22. Much depended on the powers exercised under Clause 26, by which the power under Clause 22 would be remitted. The right hon. Gentleman said the Government should know what they proposed to do; but until there was a fair prospect of the Bill passing, it would be impossible to state. The Orders were not drawn; but they were under consideration, and before the Bill passed through Committee he hoped to be able to satisfy the right hon. Gentleman. But he maintained that the abstraction of the words as proposed would prevent the Inspector from carrying out the instructions he would receive in the Orders issued under Clause 26 with regard to fairs and markets.
  MR. MURPHYsaid, if he understood the matter rightly, the addition of a few words to the 1st section of Clause 22 would carry out the idea of the hon. Baronet, and reconcile the Act with the principle it was intended to carry out. By the 1st section the Inspector was bound to make a declaration, being allowed no discretion whatever. But if it were true, as he was inclined to think it was, that the controlling words of Clause 26 would enable the Privy Council to override that—if that was so, what objection could there be to add to the end of the section a few words to that effect? The section might read thus—
  "Where it appears to an Inspector of a local authority that foot-and-mouth disease exists, or has within ten days existed, in a cowshed, field, or other place, he shall forthwith make and sign a declaration thereof, subject to instructions received from the Privy Council under section 4 of Clause 26."
  If those additional words were put in, it would explain the matter. It would override the mandatory clause; make the local Inspector subject to Clause 26; and remove the conflict which appeared to exist between the 1st section and the powers of the Privy Council. He could not see how, as the clause stood, the local Inspector could escape from the mandatory clause. Supposing a fair was about to be held in Ireland, and that for two or three days previously cattle were sent from various parts for sale, it would be quite possible for two men acting in collusion to send a beast affected with foot-and-mouth disease into the fair field, and then give

  1935
  notice. So the fair might be stopped, and the cattle jobbers would be enabled to buy at short prices. Such a possibility might occur. He ventured to think that the introduction of the words he suggested at the end of the section would meet the point raised.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONcould not venture to accept the words without consideration; but he was quite sure the Committee and himself had the same wish, and that was, to prevent fairs and markets becoming hot-beds of disease, and, at the same time, to avoid, as far as possible, interference with ordinary trade. With Clause 26, it was proposed to limit the action of the Inspector in dealing with fairs and markets. He might be authorized to deal with a part of the fair as an infected area. He was quite willing to consider words in the spirit and sense of those proposed by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Murphy), and bring them up on Report; but he could not consent to adopt the Amendment suddenly.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERtrusted the Committee would not suppose he was acting in a spirit of obstruction to the Bill, when he moved that Progress be reported. They had met with a legal difficulty, and there was another difficulty in point of policy. They could not now go through the clause, for until it was known in what way the Government were going to act, it would be impossible to vote for the last Amendment proposed. Perhaps, after consideration, the Secretary to the Treasury would be able to furnish some information.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. W. E. Forster.)
  MR. STORER, before the Question was put, wished to know how, in the case of a fair, the occupier was to be defined, and he expressed a hope that the Government would not yield on the point raised.
  Motion agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS (MONEY) BILL— [BILL 251.]
  (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 1 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 14 (Board may raise money by bills).
  MR. THOMSON HANKEY MR. THOMSON HANKEY moved, in page 6, lines 28 and 29, to leave out "two million three hundred and two thousand pounds," and insert "five hundred thousand pounds." The object was to limit the power of raising money for permanent improvements. It appeared to him that the whole clause was an extraordinary one, and he was sorry that the Metropolitan Board of Works should have thought it necessary to insert it. The only justification he could possibly understand was that it was inserted in the Bill last year; but that was no reason whatever. It was perfectly inconceivable to attempt to raise money for permanent improvements by borrowing at three, five, and 12 months. It was very undesirable to borrow the whole of this money at a particular moment. The state of the money market might be such that it would be highly inconvenient to borrow. They might borrow money on disadvantageous terms, and so put an additional tax on the Metropolitan ratepayers. It was left to the Metropolitan Board of Works whether they would borrow the whole of the money on bills of three or six months. Suppose the state of the markets to be favourable, money might be obtained extremely cheap. But securities of the kind they gave ought not to be issued for three or six months, without the possibility of repaying them. It was perfectly monstrous. The hon. and gallant Member (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg), who had joint charge of the Bill, said that it might be exceedingly convenient that a portion of this money should be so raised. If that were so, he should waive his objection as to the principle. He believed his present proposal would meet the views of the Secretary to the Treasury, and he, therefore, begged to move his Amendment.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that the Bill was brought in by

  1937
  the Treasury under an arrangement with the Metropolitan Board of Works, and no objection was taken to it last year. He quite admitted the force of all that had fallen from the hon. Member (Mr. Hankey), and now that objection had been raised, he agreed with him that it would be far better to limit these powers in the way the hon. Member proposed to do. Some power of that sort existed, and it was in the interest of the ratepayers that money should be borrowed for a short period whenever it was not possible to raise the money on advantageous terms. The Metropolitan Board had to raise money compulsorily for carrying out these works; and it was quite possible that at the time they had to raise the money there might be difficulty in getting the money at a proper rate, and it might be advantageous to take short bills until the time was more favourable.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHthought the Metropolitan Board of Works ought to be much obliged to the hon. Member who had brought this matter forward.
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGsaid, that not being really in charge of the Bill, but being in favour of it, he might say that after the advice that had been given, he should be glad to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Hankey). He might say that the Bill had been brought in for the last three or four years. Before that time the Metropolitan Board of Works came to Parliament and took power to raise money for carrying out improvements. The Treasury thought proper, a few years ago, to exempt the Metropolitan Board from carrying that out. The proposals now made brought before the purview of Parliament every year the whole of the liabilities of the Metropolitan Board. There was a statement of everything the Metropolitan Board had borrowed, and of the various improvements which had been sanctioned by Parliament. He should like to point out that, in former times, they could choose the time when they could raise loans. They were not obliged to go into the money market at a particular time, but could go in at any time they pleased that was advantageous. It was well known in the money market that the Metropolitan Board had to raise money every year, to carry out their
  1938
  works. The Board wished to obtain terms that were advantageous to the public at large; and, therefore, last year they went to the Treasury to ask for power to issue a certain number of short bills, so that they might take advantage of money being cheap, and need not go into the market. Hon. Members knew that there were such things as rigging a market, and knocking it down when a loan was expected; and that was disadvantageous to the public. Therefore, they sought power to issue these bills, in order to prevent the necessity of raising money in a manner that might be injurious to ratepayers. The Metropolitan Board of Works was not able to raise money by these bills without the consent of the Treasury, and they acted in the manner most advantageous to the public interest.
  SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTHsaid, the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Hankey) was entitled to the thanks of the House for calling attention to the subject. From what was said by the Secretary to the Treasury, it was quite clear the subject was not sufficiently considered last Session, when legislation took place of which he could not entirely approve. He should like to ask two questions whilst they were on this Bill. It was a new mode of raising money by the Metropolitan Board of Works. He wanted to know what security there was to prevent fraud on these bills? Another explanation he would like to be given was as to how the banking of the Metropolitan Board of Works was done? That was a subject which he thought ought to be more fully discussed by the House at some other time. It was obvious, from explanations given, that the Metropolitan Board of Works did not bank with the Bank of England. He had heard that the Metropolitan Board of Works had a very expensive system of banking. It was said that there was a large sum of money left at a certain bank by the Metropolitan Board which might as well be left at the Bank of England, and for which the ratepayers of London might have got a large sum of money. He should like some explanation as to the precautions proposed for preventing the fraudulent issue of these bills.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONwould remind hon. Members that he was not responsible for the action under this

  1939
  Bill last year. It was thought to be for the interest of the public that power should be given to allow the Metropolitan Board of Works to raise money in this particular way. He could not give any answer as to the banking account, because he had nothing to do with it.
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGthought the hon. Member who had used the term "fraudulent" could not have made himself acquainted with the facts. The bills were issued by the Board, and countersigned by the Treasury. He did not quite catch what the hon. Member said about banking account; but the facts of the case were these. They obtained interest for a certain portion of the money of the Board. Their bankers were the London and Westminster Bank. A great many rumours had been set about, and statements more than erroneous had got into the public prints. He had not taken the trouble to answer them; because, if he did, he might have nothing else to do. The London and Westminster Bank became the bankers of the Metropolitan Board of Works 10 or 11 years ago. That bank gave interest which the Bank of England did not. In one year the interest which the ratepayers of London received on deposits was upwards of £30,000. That was better than leaving the money idle at the Bank of England. He did not know whether the hon. Member wished for any further explanation; but, if so, he would be happy to give it.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 15 and 16 agreed to.
  Clause 17 (Mode of Issue of Metropolitan bills).
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, this was a clause which prescribed the forms and conditions under which bills were to be issued, and by what authority they were to be sanctioned. It appeared they were to be issued on the warrant of the Treasury; but it was not provided that any notice of this warrant should appear on the face of the bills, and the warrants would not be inseparably attached to the bills so as to become part of them. It was quite possible that bills might be issued by the Board without the warrant of the Treasury, or, at all events, without
  1940
  the observance of every prescribed formality. The bills were negotiable, and would probably pass into the hands of bankers without any warrant; and having no reason to suspect informality, the question would then arise, whether those who had taken them for value ought not to be protected, even though the bills had been irregularly issued? It might be that the Courts of Law would protect such holders without any express provision on their behalf, as it was the essential and distinguishing characteristic of a bill of exchange, that a person taking it for value, without notice of any equities binding it in the hands of the previous holder, held it discharged from these equities; but the point should be made clear. Those who took the bills bonâ fide ought to be protected, and their rights should be perfect. He did not wish to arrest the progress of the Bill on the present occasion; but he would ask whether, next year, words could not be inserted to protect the holders of those bills from loss by the bills having been irregularly drawn?
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAhoped the Government would not assent to the proposal. Those who took the bills of the Metropolitan Board of Works, if they had been irregularly issued, ought not to have any greater facilities for recovering the amounts than those at present existing in analogous cases.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYcould not agree with the observations of the hon. Gentleman (Sir Joseph M'Kenna), because the object was to enable the Metropolitan Board to get money at a cheap rate. In order to do that, it was necessary that their bills should be secure.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsimply wished that no more facilities should be given to the executive officials of the Metropolitan Board of Works than to those of any other public body to make irregular bills of exchange indefeasible securities.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  TELEGRAPHS BILL— [Lords]— [BILL 257.]
  (Lord John Manners.)

  SECOND READING DEFERRED.
  MR. WHITWELLwished to ask the Government whether they intended to proceed with the Bill? It had aroused strong feeling, and he would like to know whether the Government proposed to refer it to a Select Committee, or to go forward, or what course they poposed to take?
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he would be able to inform the hon. Member on Monday. He had not conferred with his noble Friend at the head of the Post Office (Lord John Manners), but he would refer to him upon the question that had been raised.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

  VALUATION OF LANDS (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT (re-committed) BILL.
  (Sir Windham Anstruther, Mr. Campbell-Bannerman, Sir Edward Colebrooke, Sir Graham Montgomery, Mr. Ramsay.)

  [BILL 205.] COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  On Question, "That the Preamble be postponed?"
  MR. R. W. DUFF MR. R. W. DUFF moved that the Chairman report Progress, because the Bill raised important questions as to the assessment of railways, besides other matters, and it was impossible to enter into them at that late hour.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Robert Duff.)
  SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERYurged that the late period of the Session rendered it necessary to proceed with the Bill. The question of rates on railways had been settled by the Select Committee of 1870; and all he proposed to do was to carry their recommendation into effect. He, therefore, hoped the hon. Member opposite (Mr. R. W. Duff) would allow the Bill to proceed.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, the measure involved important principles with regard to rating. He was not prepared
  1942
  to say whether he approved altogether of those principles or not, as embodied in the Bill; but they were so important as affecting the incidence of taxation in Scotland, that he questioned whether it was competent to introduce a measure on the subject in the form which this Bill had taken. It presented a new mode of levying taxation, and, in point of fact, added to the taxation of the country; or, at least, provided that it should be levied upon a higher valuation than at present. This was not a time for the discussion of the question. It might be quite true that these matters had been reported upon by the Select Committee of 1870; but that very fact showed that a measure of so much importance ought to have been brought forward on the responsibility of the Government, and not by a private Member. The public of Scotland, who were so vitally affected by the Bill, knew nothing about its present provisions; for, since its introduction, it had been entirely altered, and they had had no opportunity of knowing what change the measure proposed with regard to the mode of levying taxation. The effect of the Bill would be to increase the taxation upon certain classes of property for the benefit of others. Under these circumstances, he thought the people of Scotland ought to be informed, as they might be by a report of this discussion in the newspapers, what was the real nature and effect of the change contemplated by the Bill in its altered form. He would appeal to the Chairman whether a measure dealing with so important a question, and affecting the taxation of the people of Scotland, ought to be introduced in the form in which it was now brought forward?
  THE CHAIRMANruled that the Bill, in its present form, was in Order, as it dealt with a question of local rating only.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAthought it was scarcely fair to proceed with the Bill at so late an hour, and, therefore, supported the Motion for reporting Progress, as a reasonable proposition. It could not be complained by the hon. Member (Sir Graham Montgomery), who had charge of the measure, that it was likely to be damaged in any way by putting the Committee off for another night or so; because the hon. Gentleman would, no doubt, have a fair chance of bringing it on between 1 and 2 o'clock

  1943
  on some of the nights in the course of next week. He, therefore, hoped that the hon. Member would not proceed with it now.
  MR. ADAMexpressed a hope that the hon. Gentleman (Sir Graham Montgomery) would persevere with the Bill to-night. It was absurd to say that the Bill was not known. It had long been before the public, and they had had ample opportunity for making themselves acquainted with the changes it contemplated. To say that the hon. Member (Sir Graham Montgomery) ought not to bring the Bill on at that hour of the night was, considering the advanced period of the Session, as much as to say that he should not bring it forward at all. It was hard that an hon. Member should sit there till a late hour, in order to bring on a Bill, and yet be told that he must not proceed with it, because the hour was late. If Bills of that kind were not taken at a late hour, they could not be taken at all. He, therefore, trusted that the hon. Member who had charge of the Bill would persevere with it, as it was a measure which ought to be passed, and was much wanted in Scotland.
  DR. CAMERONshared the view just expressed by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Adam). The Bill had long been before the House, and for many weeks in its present shape before the public. If it were proceeded with in Committee, the public would, in no way, be damnified. The discussion of the Bill, if opposed on Report, would not come on at a later hour than half-past 12. He hoped the hon. Member who had charge of the Bill would do his best to get it through Committee to-night. There was not the smallest danger of any injury to constituents, as the hon. Member below him (Mr. R. W. Duff) would, if the Bill passed through Committee in a shape to which he objected, still have it in his power to prevent its discussion at the next stage at any hour later than half-past 12.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, passing Bills was one thing, but passing bad Bills was another. The House, which had been sitting for many hours, would have to meet at 2 o'clock the next day; and he did not think it was either convenient or desirable to proceed with the discussion of a Bill at an hour when the Committee could not very well arrive at right conclusions. It was an objectionable
  1944
  practice to force Bills through at a late hour. It was resorted to generally towards the close of the Session; and he did not think that legislation, under such circumstances, was calculated to effect improvements. He hoped the Motion for reporting Progress would be agreed to. It was much more difficult to discuss Bills at that late hour than it would be at 2 o'clock the next day.
  MR. R. W. DUFFdid not wish to appear as an obstructive. This was an important Bill. It was true that it had been before the country, and the consequence was that many representations had been made to him of the unfair character of the measure. It was really a most audacious attempt on the part of the railways to assess other properties, and to save their own from taxation. The existing Act provided that one-half the expenses of improvements might be deducted; but this Bill proposed to levy the whole of the expenses upon other property, entirely excluding that of railways. If that principle were adopted in Scotland, it would next be applied to England. Under these circumstances, he thought the Committee would acquit him of obstruction, if he persevered with his Motion for reporting Progress.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, the proposal of the hon. Member (Mr. R. W. Duff) would have been a most reasonable one if he had limited his opposition to the clauses which dealt with the matter in question. The Bill contained some very valuable clauses, which had not been mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. For his own part, he did not see why the hon. Member who had the Bill in charge should not be permitted to go on with the clauses, excepting those which the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. R. W. Duff) had objected to. If that course were adopted, a discussion on the latter might be taken at a future stage. The Bill contained provisions which were necessary for the administration of the law of valuation in Scotland.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAdeprecated proceeding at that hour of the night with a Bill to which there were no fewer than 23 Amendments. The Committee could not fairly consider so many at that time. No doubt it was a very meritorious measure; but as it would, if passed, be made a precedent for both England and Ireland, he protested

  1945
  against its being considered at 10 minutes past 1 in the morning.
  SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERY, referring to what had just fallen from the hon. Member opposite (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) as to the number of Amendments on the Paper, assured the Committee that their consideration would not occupy more than five minutes, as they were all agreed upon by the parties interested in the Bill. With regard to the remark that the rating of railways was a question which the Government ought to undertake, he could only say that they had never been able to find an opportunity to deal with it, but the present attempt had their approval; and, therefore, he hoped the Committee would consent to proceed with the Bill.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 29; Noes 57: Majority 28.—(Div. List, No. 227.)
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he had to move that the Chairman do now leave the Chair. He wished to explain that this was a very important measure, as it altered the incidence of taxation in Scotland. The right hon. and learned Gentleman (the Lord Advocate) had said that the subject had been before, and had been reported upon by, a Select Committee; but if that were so, and if the Bill were approved by the Government, surely it ought to have been brought forward as a Government Bill. But he wished particularly to call attention to Clause 9, which raised a very important question as to the incidence of taxation. He might fairly say that the people in Scotland did not know anything as to what was proposed in the Bill. It would, no doubt, be very acceptable to the Railway Companies, as it would relieve them of a very considerable amount of taxation; but he hoped that the Government would see that there were a number of Scotch Members who were determined not to allow the Bill to pass through Committee that night.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. J. W. Barclay.)
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that all he wished to point out was that there
  1946
  were two questions in the Bill. There was one, which he granted was a very important question—namely, that which was contained in the 8th clause, and had reference to the rating of railways, and he thought that ought to be fairly discussed by the House. But all the other part of the Bill was matter about which there was no dispute. Of course, if the Committee were determined not to go on with the Bill, he would advise his hon. Friend in charge of it not to get into a wrangle and waste time; but he certainly was of opinion that the Committee might get through those clauses about which there was no dispute. They were matters which were absolutely essential for the rating in Scotland, and had nothing whatever to do with that part of the Bill which dealt with railways.
  MR. R. W. DUFFasked, whether the Government would give an assurance that the 8th and 9th clauses of the Bill would not be pressed until the principle contained in them was adopted in England?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, that his name was on the back of the Bill, but it had been placed there before these particular clauses were added. The Bill had had for its objects the establishment of committees of assessment and the giving certain facilities for appeal. It had since been extended to other matters, and he was not at present prepared to say whether he agreed or disagreed with them; but he thought his hon. Friend in charge of the Bill was quite entitled to take the first seven clauses, which really were the original Bill, and the rest of the clauses might be left over for future consideration.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, that after the explanation that had just been given, they ought not to take the Bill at all at that hour of the night; for it appeared that some of the most serious clauses had not appeared in the Bill when the hon. Gentleman's name was upon the back of it. It was, as a matter of fact, another Bill substituted for the original measure.
  MR. RAMSAYsaid, he was very much in the position of the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman), for his name was on the back of the Bill; but it had been placed there when neither the 8th, 9th, or 10th clauses were in it, and those were the very parts of the Bill to which objection

  1947
  had been taken. Therefore, he had not wished to interrupt the progress of the Bill, and had, accordingly, left the House when the division took place; but he felt that if the Home Secretary would say that the Government were going now to object to progress with the 8th, 9th, and 10th clauses, then he would beg of his hon. Friend the Member for Banffshire (Mr. R. W. Duff) to allow them to proceed with the useful clauses which were contemplated when the Bill was first introduced.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that he should not wish to proceed with these clauses that night.
  MR. RAMSAYsaid, that that was not enough. He wished the Government to say that they would not proceed with them at all. If they would do that, Members on his side of the House would allow the useful part of the Bill to pass.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSthought it would be better to adjourn the debate, as it was only wasting time to go any further.
  Motion (Mr. J. W. Barclay), by leave, withdrawn.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Tuesday next.

  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Committee to consider of authorising the extension of the several provisions of "The Irish Church Act, 1869," with respect to Advances to he made by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt to the Commissioners of Church Temporalities, and with respect to the powers of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury in relation to the Money to be so raised, to the provisions of any Act of the present Session to promote Intermediate Education in Ireland (Queen's Recommendation signified), To-morrow, at Two of the clock.
  House adjourned at half after One o'clock.