§ Clause 10 (Declaration of infected place in cattle plague by inspector).
§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
said, 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-IBBETSON
said, 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. WHITWELL
held 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. BARTTELOT
did 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. BARCLAY
thought 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-IBBETSON
said, 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. SYNAN
could 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 READ
said, 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. PEASE
thought 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. RODWELL
invited 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. MUNDELLA
thought 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. NEWDEGATE
wished 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. DILKE
said, 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. MUNTZ
quite 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 LUSK
thought 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-IBBETSON
said, 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. FORSTER
said, 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. NEWDEGATE
again 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-IBBETSON
apologized 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. CHAMBERLAIN
said, 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. NEWDEGATE
agreed 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. BARCLAY
proposed 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.
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. PEASE
pointed 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-IBBETSON
could 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.
hoped 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. BARCLAY
could 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. MUNDELLA
was 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'LAGAN
expressed 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 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 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. CHAMBERLAIN
said, 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.)
was 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.
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. DILKE
drew 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 READ
contended 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. PEASE
pointed 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. BARTTELOT
said, 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. ANDERSON
said, 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. NEWDEGATE
said, 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. CHAMBERLAIN
thought 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-IBBETSON
said, 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. BARCLAY
opposed 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. FORSTER
was 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. MUNTZ
said, 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. BARCLAY
wished 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. CHAMBERLAIN
said, 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 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 READ
agreed 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. WHITWELL
thought 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-IBBETSON
said, 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. BARCLAY
said, 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. DODSON
said, 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. J. W. BARCLAY
said, 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:— 1884Provided, 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.