Pleuro-pneumonia.

HC Deb 18 July 1878 vol 241 cc1884-923

Clause 16 (Declaration of infected place in pleuro-pneumonia by local authority).

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-IBBETSON

thought 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 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. CHAMBERLAIN

did not think that the hon. Baronet quite followed the point which he wished to make.

MR. SYNAN

considered 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'SULLIVAN

also 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 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 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. WHITWELL

urged 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-IBBETSON

said, 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 HENRY

hoped 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-IBBETSON

repeated 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. ANDERSON

was 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. 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 HENRY

maintained 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. CHAMBERLAIN

admitted 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. SYNAN

thought 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. COWEN

was 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. ANDERSON

said, 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'LAGAN

referred 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 moved, in page 7, line 16, at end, to insert— 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 READ

wished 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-IBBETSON

said, the effect of the Amendment would be practically to take away the discretion of the local authorities. The difference 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. MACDONALD

maintained 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'LAGAN

remarked, that as this was the first Bill that had been introduced with the avowed object of stamping out cattle disease, the farmers 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 BALFOUR

asked 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— 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. CHAMBERLAIN

said, 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. BARCLAY

said, 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. GOLDNEY

said, it was provided by the Bill that the Inspector was to 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. FORSTER

thought 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. SYNAN

was sorry the right hon. Gentleman was not present when the discussion occurred on the word "place" in connection with another 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-IBBETSON

said, 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 (Mr. W. E. Forster) the area was similarly limited to a cowshed, field, or other place.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

asked what was the meaning of the word "place?"

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

supposed 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. FORSTER

said, 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 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. MACDONALD

said, 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 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 READ

was 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. PEASE

wished 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. GREGORY

could 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 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. FORSTER

was 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 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-IBBETSON

said, 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. FORSTER

said, 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 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. GOLDNEY

said, 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. EARP

said, 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.CHAMBERLAIN

said, 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 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. CHAPLIN

said, 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 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. BARCLAY

wished 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- 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-BRISE

said, 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. FORSTER

said, 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. STORER

said, 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 both might be infected, and there might be intervening another place in another occupation which might not be infected.

MR. MURPHY

said, 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. MUNDELLA

said, 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. NEWDEGATE

said, 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 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. BARCLAY

said, 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-IBBETSON

said, 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 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 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-IBBETSON

said, 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 removal of animals in a way that would spread the disease.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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-IBBETSON

said, 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 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. CHAPLIN

said, 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. CHAMBERLAIN

said, 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. STARKIE

said, 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. BARCLAY

said, 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-IBBETSON

could not accept the Amendment, and the reasons given appeared to him sufficient.

MR. ANDERSON

said, 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 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 CHAIRMAN

pointed 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. SYNAN

said, 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-IBBETSON

said, 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. BARCLAY

pointed 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. SYNAN

then 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-IBBETSON

said, 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 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-IBBETSON

said, with regard to compensation, there was a distinct difference between the slaughter of cattle for cattle plague and slaughter for pleuro-pneumonia. If it 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. PELL

said, 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 acted in concert, would be good enough to withdraw his Amendment.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, 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. CHAPLIN

said, 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 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 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 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. FORSTER

said, 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 HENRY

hoped 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. CHAMBERLAIN

did not wish to put the Committee to the trouble of dividing; but he claimed from hon. Members the courtesy of an answer.

MR. CLARE READ

said, 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. CHAPLIN

thought 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. MUNDELLA

said, 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 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 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 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-IBBETSON

could 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 READ

quite 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. BARCLAY

called 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. FORSTER

said, 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 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 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-IBBETSON

could 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. BARCLAY

believed 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. WHITWELL

thought 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-HOGG

said, that as the Amendment did not meet with the approval of the Committee, he would withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. MURPHY

wished 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-IBBETSON

assented.

Amendment agreed to.

On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill?"

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, 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. BARCLAY

considered it would be advisable to leave out districts for pleuro-pneumonia, and to make the Act more stringent as regarded places.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, 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 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. FORSTER

was 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.