Foot-and-mouth Disease.

HC Deb 19 July 1878 vol 241 cc1974-2009

Clause 22 (Declaration of infected place in foot-and-mouth disease by local authority).

Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 3, after the word "place," to insert the words "not being a fair, or marketplace, or wharf."—(Mr. Synan.)

Question proposed, ''That those words be there inserted."

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

reminded the Committee that they had reported Progress on Thursday, after a discussion had arisen on the construction of the clause at present under notice, and its bearing upon the sub-section of Clause 26, and also of the doubt that had arisen as to the proper interpretation of the powers of the Inspector, under Clause 22, in regard to such places as fairs, markets, and wharves, referred to in the other clauses. He had carefully gone through the clause in consultation with those who had charge of the Veterinary Department under the Act already in existence, and in consultation also with the learned gentleman who had drawn up the clauses of the Bill, and he desired now to make a suggestion to the Committee, that whilst the Committee was certainly not to give the unlimited power suggested under the sub-section, it would probably be best guarded against, not by inserting words which would hamper the Inspector in carrying out the instructions laid down in Clause 26, but by a reference at the end of this clause, which would make it practically subservient, or rather entirely and directly subservient, to Clause 26. For the carrying out of this proposal, he would propose, that in Clause 22, page 9, after line 36—that was at the end of the clause—they should add to the paragraph the following words— This section shall, not with standing anything therein contained, be construed and have effect, subject to the subsequent section in this Act contained, where by the Privy Council are required to make, by Order, provision respecting the case of animals found to be affected with foot-and-mouth disease while exposed for sale or exhibited in a market, fair, sale-yard, or place of exhibition, and in other circumstances specified in the same section, and generally while being on land or in a place other than land, or a place in the possession or occupation, or under the control, of the owner of the animals. This reference would embrace the Amendment he proposed to move on Clause 26, and would embrace the alteration of the sub-section, and would refer to the beginning and ending paragraphs of that clause. In this way it would become distinctly clear on the face of Clause 22 that it was governed entirely by the provisions laid down in Clause 26. This, he believed, would get over the difficulty whether Clause 26 would override the provisions of Clause 22. There was a further question referred to him yesterday, which he was asked to consider with the Officers of the Department in charge of this particular measure, and that was in regard to what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) asked as to the terms in which the sub-sections of Clause 26 would be enacted. Now, of course, it was impossible, as he (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) had stated at the time, to place before Parliament the actual words of this future governing sub-section; but he did not understand the right hon. Gentleman to go so far as to say that he wished to be informed of the actual terms of the section, but rather that he wished to know what was in the mind of the Privy Council with regard to their conduct of this particular class of cases. He was now able to state to the Committee generally what those terms would be. Before he read the words of the Memorandum which would govern the formation of the clause, he should like to call the attention of the Committee to the difficulties that must arise in dealing with this particular class of cases. Now, in the first instance, there was no question that there were enormous difficulties in dealing with the cases of fairs, especially fairs of any considerable size. They could not—and he gathered that this was the general feeling of the Committee, and what was suggested by many speakers yesterday—they could not practically declare a mar- ket or fair to be an infected place; they could not possibly go to the extent of even dealing with a large portion of that market or fair as an infected place; and they would find endless difficulties in this clause arising from the subsequent sub-section. Take the case of a train of animals which was stopped at some place in order to water the animals, and it was then discovered that in one of the railway trucks there was an animal affected with foot-and-mouth disease or pleuro-pneumonia. It was certainly not possible in such a case of transit to deal with the whole train of animals, and there were many other cases in which there was similar difficulty in dealing generally with markets, or fairs, or animals in transit. What he thought the country might fairly expect, and what ought to satisfy the country in dealing with the case, was that where the presumption was that in a fair or market there were infected animals, the Inspector should not be expected to declare the place infected, but that he should be instructed to seize and detain animals suffering from disease, and remove them at once, in a similar manner to that which was provided under the 7th clause—he thought—of the Act passed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. E. Forster). He would remove them to a convenient place of detention, either for treatment, or for slaughter, if it became necessary. They would be sent there for such a time as the local authority or the Privy Council considered expedient, subject, of course, to the general provisions of the Act in regard to slaughter; but if, in any particular case, the Inspector had reason to believe that other animals had been exposed to the infection by having been herded with, or in contact with, the diseased animals, he would have power to deal with them as if they were diseased animals—that was to say, that he could take them away and keep them under inspection or supervision until they either developed the disease, or he could pronounce them sound. If necessary, they would be subject to the general provisions of the Act in regard to slaughter. In the case of all other animals, except those dealt with in this manner by the Inspector, they would be free to move in the market as if the disease had not been discovered. Then, again, if any portion of the site of the market or fair in which the disease was found to be existing was capable of being severed from the rest of the market or fair, the local authority would have power to cause the same to be severed, and cleansed, and disinfected, in the manner prescribed by Privy Council, before other animals were admitted therein. If a portion of the site so severed was, in the judgment of the Privy Council, or of the local authority, capable of being declared a separate place, they would have power so to declare it, and to make rules that would apply to wharves, lairs, and other places. This was a general outline of the conditions on which the Privy Council was prepared to draw up provisions affecting the treatment of animals under Clause 26, and taking into consideration the Amendment he had suggested previously, distinctly referring to Clause 26 as the governing clause of Clause 22, limited as it must be by the regulations of the Privy Council with regard to these fairs, markets, and wharves, and enabling the Inspector, the local authority, and the Privy Council, to deal as far as possible with cases of disease, when they were discovered to exist in markets or fairs. He thought the Committee would see, that by the adoption of these Amendments, they would get rid of the difficulties that were suggested in the course of the discussion yesterday, especially by the Irish Members. There would be no danger of injuring the trade in connection with the large assemblage of animals which took place in the Irish fairs, nor would there be any immediate danger of the disease being likely to spread in consequence of the powers of the Inspector being taken away from the fairs and markets altogether. He hoped these propositions would satisfy the Committee that the question had been carefully considered by the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council. That Department was prepared to carry out the Bill, if it became an Act, with a full intention of, as far as possible, protecting the country against the spread of disease, and, at the same time, of giving an assurance to those who were entrusted with the trade of the country, that these precautions would not be carried too far, so as to interfere needlessly with the trade.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

was much obliged to the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin- Ibbetson) for the endeavours he had made to meet the objections raised last night in regard to the clause, both as regarded the legal difficulty and the far more important question of policy. The legal difficulty of the clashing of Clause 22 with Clause 26 would be removed by some such words as the hon. Baronet proposed to add to Clause 22. In regard to the much more important question, he certainly felt that they really could not proceed with this clause without knowing how the Government meant to deal with disease when they discovered it in the markets or on the wharves. In order to solve the difficulty, the hon. Baronet had put to the very able Head of the Veterinary Department the question as to the way in which he would propose to deal with the definition of "a place" within the meaning of the Bill? Now, he (Mr. W. E. Forster) did not know that a much more difficult question could be put to Professor Brown, and he thought that Professor Brown, on his part, had given about as good an answer as it was possible for him to give. He believed the Committee upstairs, or any hon. Gentleman who had investigated the matter, would agree with him, that it was a very difficult thing the Head of the Department had to determine—a difficulty very much greater than the case of the cattle plague. With regard to foot-and-mouth disease, it was very nearly, if not quite, as infectious as cattle plague; but it was nothing like so dangerous or so destructive; and, consequently, what Professor Brown had to consider was, what he could do towards stamping out the disease that would not be worse than the disease itself. He (Mr. W. E. Forster) was prepared to admit, and had always believed, that so stringent a regulation as stopping the fairs and markets, or isolating them, or declaring them infected places, would not be borne by the trade or the public; and he had no doubt that Professor Brown, knowing that, felt it impossible to recommend a stronger measure. But, then, Professor Brown had to consider also what he could recommend, and he had probably recommended as effective a measure as could be adopted, short of stopping the market or fair. He (Mr. W. E. Forster) did not blame the Government for the course they were taking. If they intended to take any measure at all for stamping out the disease they would be obliged to interfere with, the markets and fairs to some extent, and he did not think it would be possible for them to interfere with them to a greater extent than was now proposed. He hoped that those hon. Members who cared about the matter would not be led away by false hopes in the matter. If they would look back to the advice given by Professor Brown and Professor Simonds—the two best authorities on the subject, both from scientific knowledge and practical experience in putting the Acts into operation—they would find that those gentlemen had never swerved from the belief that if they were to stamp out these exceedingly infectious diseases, which did not go merely by touch, but got into the atmosphere around, they must take the same steps that they took in regard to the cattle plague, merely substituting isolation for compulsory slaughter. What was now proposed was very far short of that. As he had already said, he did not blame the Government for that. When Professor Brown was once asked what would be done in the case of a stringent measure being adopted? he said he thought that such an Act would be obstructive, and would prove inefficient. He (Mr. W. E. Forster) thought the Government, in this instance, had avoided, as far as possible, introducing a provision that would be obstructive, but he did not believe that any one who understood the matter would for a moment suppose that the Government could be certain that their measure would be effective. He did not wish to charge the Government with putting in force regulations that would involve great inconvenience, but they would undoubtedly involve some inconvenience; and he must be allowed to say that those who believed the regulations would not be sufficient, would have to approach the other parts of the Bill, which related to the foreign importation, differently from what they would have approached them if the Government were prepared to take the measures which, to his mind, were necessary, if they desired to stamp out the disease. He did not advise the Government to do that, and he repeated, that if they did, the remedy would be worse than the disease. Perhaps he would not be out of Order if he were to say how he thought they would stand, supposing these foot-and-mouth clauses were agreed to very much as the Government proposed them—how they would stand in regard to the disease generally. It was impossible to consider the home clauses without bearing in mind the foreign clauses, because they must always recollect that, by the arguments of the Government—by the Report drawn up by the Secretary to the Treasury himself, to which the Committee agreed, and on which all this legislation was based—the foreign legislation was hung on to the home legislation, and it was stated that new foreign regulations could not be carried out without efficient home regulations. The foreign regulations had been changed, and changed very much for the better, since the Bill was drawn up; but the Bill, with the Amendments, of which Notice had been given by the Government, would come to this—At the present moment the Privy Council had absolute discretion with regard to the admission of foreign animals; but they had established a custom and rules on which they exercised that discretion. One of those rules was this—and it was a very severe rule—that if a cargo of cattle came from the Continent, and one animal had the foot-and-mouth disease, all the animals should be slaughtered. That was the present rule; and, perhaps, he might be again allowed to repeat the challenge he had made once or twice, and which he believed had never been responded to, that since that regulation had been enforced, he did not think a single case could be brought forward in which there was a reasonable ground for belief that the foot-and-mouth disease had been introduced by foreign importation. What was it that the Government proposed to do now? They proposed still to leave a discretion to the Privy Council. He did not call in question on which side the presumption was. The presumption was, he thought, and it ought to be, in favour of Free Trade; but when the rule began ostensibly with more exceptions than observances, the rule itself did not amount to much. The rule proposed that there should be a certain discretion, accorded by Parliamentary instructions, and those Parliamentary instructions were, first, that the law of the country should be against disease; and, secondly, that there should be an endeavour made by the country to prevent the importation of disease. Hitherto the Privy Council had made their regulations solely in accordance with the cattle plague. That was the principle on which he, when in Office, thought it his duty to act, and it was the principle on which the Duke of Richmond and Gordon, up to this time, had acted. He believed he was right in saying that the importation from no country had been prohibited; that no country had been scheduled; and that in no case had it been declared that the cattle of any particular country were not to come in at all, or slaughtered at the port of landing, for any disease but cattle plague. The countries scheduled last year were scheduled on account of cattle plague. The Government now proposed to make this great change—They said that they gave to the Privy Council almost compulsory duties, and they were to act according to the prevalence of the diseases—meaning pleuro-pneumonia and foot-and-mouth disease. With regard to pleuro-pneumonia, after carefully thinking of the matter, he was himself prepared to make what he considered to be a great concession, which was, that if the Privy Council believed that pleuro-pneumonia was prevalent in any country, he would admit that there should be a regulation for slaughtering animals from that country at the port of landing. He hoped his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury would feel that this was not saying a little. He was not at all sure that he would be able to carry other hon. Members with him. That had not been possible hitherto; but he thought there was going to be a real attempt to get rid of pleuro-pneumonia out of the country. At any rate, there was to be an infected district, as well as an infected place. It was in no respect an easy disease to deal with, it was not so infectious, but it was a disease from which there was more danger of foreign import, because it took a long time to develop. When they came to deal with the question of foot-and-mouth disease, he hoped the Committee would consider that they had home regulations to study, which he did not think would be of much service. They might try them, but he did not believe they would be very effectual, and if they tried to make them sufficiently stringent, they would be pulled up by the fact that they were too stringent. For dealing effectively with this disease, power ought to be given to stop markets. Under the provisions introduced by the Secretary to the Treasury, they would not be able to stop markets. The movement of cattle over large areas should also be prevented. Under the clause, the movement of cattle over large areas could not be prevented. Foot-and-mouth disease developed very quickly—experts put the period as varying from 40 hours to three days; and, therefore, it was in that respect an easier disease to deal with than pleuro-pneumonia. In regard to the latter disease, he believed the Government had done all that they could do; and as to the foreign trade, he thought the Privy Council ought to be satisfied with an assurance from the exporting country that it had done its utmost in regard to the inspection and detention of animals before leaving the port of embarkation.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

desired to reply at once to what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, especially to his assumption that the home regulations would prove insufficient. Now, the home regulations at present in existence differed in many respects in themselves; and one object of the Bill was to bring about an uniformity of action where now there was a difference of action. A controlling power was to be given to the Privy Council which had never before been enforced—a power more severe, too, than even the right hon. Gentleman had suggested. His right hon. Friend asserted that the regulations would not be equal to stopping disease in fairs and markets; but it ought to be remembered that what the Government proposed to do was to attack the disease in the homesteads, and by uniformity of action endeavour to stamp it out. If the regulations in this respect were properly carried out—and no one had yet suggested that they would not be—the possibility of fairs and markets becoming centres of disease would perforce be greatly diminished. Now, although the powers of the Privy Council over markets and fairs were somewhat limited by the clause he had proposed, it ought not to be forgotten that the old authority of that body was re-enacted, by which the Council would be enabled to regulate the movements of cattle, and—if it were necessary for the public interest—to close any fair or market, He main- tained that the Bill was an attempt—an honest attempt—on the part of the Government to attack the disease at its very root—namely, the homesteads of the country; and, in his opinion, the powers which were to be created, strengthened by the re-enactment of the existing law, would be quite sufficient to deal with the possibility of any distribution of disease by markets or fairs. With regard to the difference in the treatment of home and foreign cattle, the Government had before stated the ground on which the distinction was based. It was simply this—that they had not the same control over or knowledge of the trading going on on the Continent as of that at home. At home, the Privy Council was the eye that was to supervise. It would be the centre of all information relating to the out break of disease, and having a perfect knowledge of what was happening, it would be able to exercise its powers of control with effect. But what would the Privy Council be able to do in regard to foreign countries? They might receive some general information as to what was going on there; but they had no Inspectors of their own who could keep them advised of the state of affairs in a particular district, as at home. It was because of the absence of the means of obtaining information equivalent to that supplied in England that made it indispensable, if they really aimed at stamping out the disease, that some restrictions should be applied to the foreign trade which it was not necessary should be enforced against the home trade. Under the alterations proposed by the Government, those restrictions were limited to the lowest possible degree of stringency; they would not inflict any interference with the importation of healthy cattle from abroad, whilst they would give the authorities efficient means of checking the introduction of disease.

MR. EVANS,

though agreeing with very much that had fallen from the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), could not conceal from himself that the question of foot-and-mouth disease was surrounded by many difficulties. That disease had prevailed extensively in the district of his constituency; and he had no hesitation in saying that far greater loss had been sustained than by what was by some considered to be the more formidable—pleuro-pneumonia. It was true that the cattle generally recovered from foot-and-mouth disease; but they were always very reduced in condition, and consequently in value. He entirely agreed that it was not reasonable to expect that very severe restrictions could be enforced in regard to foreign trade, if people at home were not ready to suffer some inconvenience and trouble for the purpose of stamping out the disease. He believed that by the Bill uniformity of action would be secured, and he counselled the Government that they must not permit their Inspectors to be too tender in enforcing the regulations or to give way to pressure; for if too much relaxation of the restrictions were permitted, foot-and-mouth disease would certainly crop up in unexpected quarters, and the result which they all so much desired to obtain would be unaccomplished. What he was particularly anxious to see was, that not only should the Privy Council secure ample powers under the Bill, but that they should show plenty of backbone in putting them into force.

MR. KAVANAGH

desired only to say that he was as convinced as ever that it was an absurdity—if he might use the word—to think it possible that foot-and-mouth disease could be stamped out by any regulations; but as his constituents would prefer to have the Bill as it was to having no Bill at all, he should not stand in the way of the progress of the measure, and would withdraw the Amendment of which he had given Notice.

MR. SYNAN

said, that as the alteration to the clause brought up by the Secretary to the Treasury at the eleventh hour sufficiently met his objections, he had no hesitation in withdrawing his Amendment; but he wished to point out that those alterations would require to be applied also to Clauses 16 and 17, and also to Clause 23. [Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON assented.] Well, then, having arrived at that satisfactory conclusion, the Bill, he thought, ought to be allowed to proceed. Their object should be to give a fair consideration to the measure, and to try to make the provisions it laid down uniform and consistent, devised as they were in the interests both of producer and consumer. A great obstacle had been removed by the concessions of the Government—an obstacle which some hon. Gentleman desired to make a bone of contention between Irish Members and hon. Members opposite. In reference to the argument that foreign and home cattle should be placed on the same footing, he was bound to say he did not agree with it. If foreign countries would enforce the regulations defined in the Bill now before the Committee, and would take steps for stamping out disease, then there could be no objection to their being placed on a footing with England; but, until they did that, the argument could not apply.

MR. NEWDEGATE

remarked, that whilst these concessions had been claimed in the interests of Irish fairs and markets, it was a fact that in England——

MR. SYNAN,

interposing, said, he expressly stated in his argument that the provisions of the Bill, as they originally stood, affected English, as well as Irish, fairs and markets.

MR. NEWDEGATE

contended that it was a fact that in England the local authorities had the power of suspending fairs and markets, and that power he did not wish to see taken away by any action of the Privy Council. If it was to be interfered with at all, he would desire that it should be in the direction of strengthening rather than relaxing the power. He saw very plainly that the Privy Council was exposed far more than the local authorities to pressure from importers and Irish Members; and therefore it was that he desired to enter a distinct protest against the local authorities being deprived, either by the action of the Privy Council, or in any other way, of the power they now possessed of suspending fairs and markets, Now, the Secretary to the Treasury had described the English homesteads as being the source of the disease; whereas, as they all knew, it came from the fairs and markets, to which it was introduced in the first instance from the ports. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) had quoted the opinion of Professor Simonds and Professor Brown, to the effect that they did not believe the agriculturists and the public would submit to additional restrictions; but he begged to remind him that that evidence was given before the beginning of the movement of last year, which had since taken form and substance, and which had led to a distinct and authoritative statement in that House that the agriculturists of England and Scotland were willing to submit to further restrictions. The evidence, therefore, was given in reference to a state of things totally different to that which now existed.

MAJOR NOLAN

believed that no better mode could have been devised for meeting the difficulty that had arisen than that provided by the clause introduced by the Secretary to the Treasury; but he pointed out that owing to the manner in which the Bill was drawn, fields and sheds were placed on a same level with fairs and markets. He thought that the Privy Council should be given the power to draw a distinction between the two classes of places.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

explained that the Privy Council would carry out Orders on that subject which would not be permissive, but obligatory on it. Those Orders must be made at once by the Privy Council on the passing of that Bill, and therefore they would be in existence before the measure came into force. In order to clear up any doubt caused by the manner in which the Bill was originally drafted, he intended to introduce at the end of Clause 22, a paragraph which would absolutely refer the powers of that clause to Clause 26. The operation of Clause 26 would then entirely govern Clause 22, and the effect would be to deprive the local authorities from dealing with fairs and markets in any other way than that laid down in Clause 26.

MR. ANDERSON

contended that as the Bill stood, it was perfectly clear that the local authority had power to close markets and fairs.

[Whilst the hon. Member was speaking from the fourth bench below the Gangway, the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) walked from the Clerk's Table down the floor of the House to his seat on the front bench. Exception being taken to this act by loud cries of " Order!"]

MR. SULLIVAN

appealed to the Chairman, whether he was not in Order in passing down the floor of the House whilst an hon. Member was addressing the Committee from the fourth bench. [Renewed cries of "Order!"] The Chairman was the proper authority to cry "Order!" if he had transgressed the Rules.

THE CHAIRMAN

ruled, that according to the universal practice of the House, the hon. and learned Member for Louth was perfectly in Order.

MR. ANDERSON,

continuing, said, the sole ground on which the Committee were justified in agreeing to such severe restrictions on the foreign trade was the statement universally made that all parties in this country were willing to submit to any amount of restriction necessary to stamp out disease at home. But the moment this declaration was actually put to the test, hon. Members were found crying out against it. The Government gave in to the Irish Members who made a strong protest against the stopping of their fairs and markets, and now, in the matter of foot-and-mouth disease, all power was to be taken from the local authority. The effect of such concession was that one hon. Member had already asked the Government to go back on the Bill, and make the same arrangements with regard to pleuro-pneumonia. It was clear the restrictions which the Bill attempted to impose on the home trade would not be submitted to, and it was equally clear that if fairs and markets were not restricted, the Bill could not be made effective to stamp out disease, whether pleuro-pneumonia, which incubated for a long period even up to 56 days, or foot-and-mouth disease, which incubated for a shorter time. Fairs and markets, if not dealt with promptly—and they could only be dealt with promptly by the local authority—would undoubtedly become hotbeds of disease. Then the question arose—If they gave way with regard to home trade restrictions, what restrictions were to be placed on the foreign trade? It was clear they would have to be modified also.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

agreed with the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), that the proposed amended clause, instead of leading to increased stringency, would operate with increased laxity. If the local authorities were not to have the power of controlling the fairs and markets in their own districts, they would be deprived of a great power for dealing with disease and preventing its spread. The local authority was surely the best judge whether it was practicable to stop a market or fair within its own jurisdiction. How was the Privy Council to ascertain what would be the effect of every country market? Was the Privy Council going to make inquiry in regard to each market all over the country, to see whether it were possible to stop it or not? The step the Government had taken was decidedly a retrograde step.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

could not even now understand what the Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) anticipated would be the effect of the amended clause. He would like to know whether he believed that in the event of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in any district, fairs and markets would be stopped. He had yielded to opposition in the House of Commons, and it was to be assumed that similar representations would have their effect upon him afterwards, and that neither fairs nor markets would be stopped for foot-and-mouth disease. If that were so, the discussion on the Bill had arrived at a most critical stage. The Bill was more than else a foot-and-mouth disease Bill. It had been represented to Parliament that foot-and-mouth disease involved greater injury and loss to farmers than ever cattle plague, and that a real and efficient attempt was going to be made to stop it. All the evidence laid before the Select Committee showed that no efforts to check it could be effectual which did not involve the stoppage of fairs and markets where the disease prevailed. That was not stated in any doubtful way at all. Professor Simonds said it was absolutely necessary to do this, and Professor Brown said that to make any arrangement which would not include this, would be ridiculous, and dishonest to foreign countries on whom we imposed restrictions. Were the Committee going to pass a dishonest Bill? The hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) gave evidence before the Committee that, in all cases where foot-and-mouth disease was general, fairs and markets should be stopped for a time. The case of his own market at Norwich was mentioned, and his opinion that it ought to be closed was not shaken. What was the use of the Committee passing the Bill, when it was perfectly evident that it was not going to stop fairs and markets, or to make a serious attempt to deal with foot-and-mouth disease in this country, although it imposed new restrictions upon the foreign trade. In some respects the Bill would now be less efficient than ex- isting legislation, under which a whole cargo of animals from Ireland were detained at Silloth on account of foot-and-mouth disease. It was urged that the Government had at least secured uniformity; but he said that they had done nothing of the sort. An extraordinarily wide discretionary power was, throughout the Bill, reserved both to the local authority and the Privy Council. According to the 22nd clause, the Inspector had first to declare what was an infected place; but it only became an infected place under the Act, subject to the determination and declaration of the local authority, who "may, if they think fit, declare an infected place." He had the greatest respect for local authorities; but when there were so many and variously-thinking local authorities to deal with, it was ridiculous and absurd to say that by intrusting them with this wide discretion, uniformity of legislation could be secured. He would certainly vote against the clause as amended.

MR. PEASE

said, he had himself put Amendments on the Paper on the subject of fairs and markets. Foot-and-mouth disease must be dealt stringently with, or the Bill would be of no use. But if the Government were prepared to grant foot-and-mouth districts, and to consider such Amendments as he proposed, they might be able to deal effectively with the disease.

MR. CLARE READ

understood the proposal of his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury to apply to exceptional and unexpected development of disease in a fair after the fair had begun. In that case it was impossible to apply foot-and-mouth rules; but he hoped that in Ireland the same rules would be put in force, and that when a district was grievously affected with foot-and-mouth disease, there would be power, on the part of the Privy Council, to prevent fairs being held.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

pointed out, that by the plan of the Bill, there was no district for foot-and-mouth disease; and asked whether there was any attempt on the part of the Government to stop fairs and markets for foot-and-mouth disease?

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

explained, that, doubt having arisen whether the operation of Clause 26 would override or not the action of the Under Secretary of State on Clause 22, he pro- posed to make it quite clear that the action of the Privy Council in Clause 26 was the direct action of the local authority and of the Inspector under Clause 22. These clauses, as had been justly said, were intended to deal with sudden outbreaks in fairs and markets. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) forgot the powers existing at present under his own Act in case of disease breaking out in any particular district. That existing law was here reproduced.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, the Committee appeared to be much in the position that it occupied the other evening in regard to another subject. They did not know really what was going to be done under the Bill with regard to foot-and-mouth disease. The Bill did not say whether fairs and markets were to be stopped. It was useless to answer that the Act of 1869 did not say so. That Act did not deal with the prevalence of disease in foreign countries. If foot-and-mouth disease broke out all round the city of York, did the Government intend to stop the market? It was useless taking up time discussing regulations until this was known.

MR. GORST

called the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to Clause 30, Sub-section 19, which enabled the Privy Council to make regulations for prohibiting markets and fairs.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

remarked that what the Committee wanted to know was whether the Government intended to use that power?

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, everything depended upon whether the disease was prevalent or not; and, therefore, it was thought wise to leave the discretion with the Privy Council. Were they to define what prevalence was, it would be within the knowledge of their Inspectors whether, in any district, the prevalence of disease justified extreme measures. If the Bill laid down that fairs and markets were to be stopped, the Privy Council would have the same to do as now—to decide what constituted prevalence—and thus to use their discretion as to the stopping of a fair or market. As they could not define the prevalence in the Bill, something must be left to the discretion of the Veterinary Department, in whom they could safely trust. Not withstanding what the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) had said, there would be uniformity under the Bill. The hon. Member did not seem to have studied the question so deeply as he might have done, for he had not even realized the fact that he (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) did not belong to the Veterinary Department; and that, therefore, his action now would have nothing to do with the action of the Veterinary Department hereafter in these cases. Neither was he connected with the Privy Council, nor had he anything to do with the Orders issued from that Department, and he was only acting as the Member of the Government in charge of the Bill.

MR. O'SULLIVAN

said, it was hardly fair for hon. Members to lead the Committee to believe that the Irish Members were anxious to have fairs and markets where there was disease. They yielded to no hon. Members of the Committee in their desire to stamp out disease, because it was their interest to stamp it out. But they wanted to prevent any local authority who might have the power, coming to a fair and breaking it up, because one beast might be attacked out of 3,000 or 4,000. In cases where there were opposition fair-grounds in one district, the owner of them might, if he were bad enough to do it, send a diseased beast into one of the others' fields, where the local authorities would pounce upon it. It was monstrous to suppose that Irish Members wanted fairs in districts where disease was. They wanted to prevent fairs being broken up from the vindictiveness, ignorance, or neglect, of any local authority.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, the Secretary to the Treasury's objection to something he had said was hardly worthy of him. He (Mr. Chamberlain) was perfectly aware that the hon. Baronet was not connected with the Privy Council, and he was really referring through him, as the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, to the Representatives of the Government. As the hon. Baronet had just stated that it was impossible to define in an Act of Parliament what constituted prevalency of disease, he begged to ask how, in these circumstances, the word prevalent was used in the Schedule, which said that animals from the countries therein named might be admitted when disease was not "prevalent" therein.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, the question was, whether there was in this Bill as now proposed, any more compulsion on the Privy Council to act more stringently than there was under the present law, or whether there was any more compulsion on local authorities to act more stringently than the Privy Council could require them to do at present?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. CLARE READ

moved, as an Amendment, in page 9, line 7, after "place," to insert— And also on the occupier or occupiers of any lands or buildings contiguous thereto, as he shall consider necessary. Such an Amendment he held to be essential, in order to deal effectually with foot-and-mouth disease. He hoped, therefore, it would be allowed to pass.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

pointed out that at present the Inspector had the power to serve the notice on any one of those on whom he thought necessary to serve it in the neighbourhood. He had agreed to bring up words on Report which would oblige the posting of a public notice in accordance with the suggestion of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate). This, with the discretion of the Inspector, would amply carry out the object desired.

MR. CHAPLIN

said, he thought the Amendment, making as it did a discretionary power an obligatory duty on the part of the Inspector, was a reasonable one, and he hoped the words would be inserted.

Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

moved, as an Amendment, in page 9, line 18, to leave out from "and," to the end of the clause, and insert— And shall prescribe that the area, within a radius of not less than one mile from the infected place, shall become, and be, an inspected district. He thought that the adoption of this Amendment was absolutely necessary, if, by the Bill, it was meant to impose greater stringency in dealing with foot-and-mouth disease. Although he was not a Member of the Select Committee of last year, he sat with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) and his hon. Friend the Mem- ber for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) upon the Committee which, sat in 1873. Upon that occasion they inquired very carefully into the practicability of suppressing altogether foot-and-mouth disease; and he and his hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk differed from the conclusions which the other Members of the Committee came to. The great majority of the Committee were of opinion that no steps which could be taken would be really effectual in stamping out disease, or that, at least, to adopt such measures as would be necessary to effect that object would be a greater grievance and calamity than the disease itself. But it occurred to him then, and he still held to the opinion, that when foot-and-mouth disease became restricted within narrow limits, or had almost disappeared in the country, it would be possible, within a certain limited area, to impose such stringent regulations as would prevent the disease spreading outside that area. He moved an Amendment embodying his views to the Report of the Committee; but he only received the support of his hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk. The hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell), the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), voted against him. What had taken place since that time? The circumstances which he anticipated, and which, he might say, were anticipated also by almost all the skilled witnesses, had arisen. The foot-and-mouth disease, he was happy to believe, had now been confined within very narrow limits, and it did seem to him—and this was one of the reasons why he had supported the measure of the Government—that if stringent measures were enforced within the limited areas within which foot-and-mouth disease now existed, it might be confined to those areas, and finally exterminated. At the same time, the other principle which he supported in the Bill—namely, that there should be no importation of store cattle from abroad, and that all fat cattle should be slaughtered at the port of debarkation, would prevent the re-introduction of disease from foreign countries. These were the general grounds upon which he had supported the second reading of the Bill. He believed that if these principles were carried into effect they would be of great service to the country; that if they did not altogether exterminate foot-and-mouth disease and pleuro-pneumonia, they would reduce those diseases with in very small limits, indeed; and that would be attended with as great an advantage to the consumers of beef throughout the country as to the owners of cattle. The Government had not yet committed themselves to the definite proposals with respect to foreign animals, and he was not altogether without hope, after the many changes which had taken place, that they might still return to their first love, and adhere to the broad general principle which was embodied in the Bill as introduced into that House. And now he wished to carry out, with regard to home cattle, corresponding restrictions, which should have these effects which he anticipated would flow from the restrictions in regard to foreign cattle. It was very clear that if they were going to deal effectually with foot-and-mouth disease, they must prescribe a certain area within which the attempt must be made to confine the disease when it was first discovered to exist there. There was no doubt that the carrying out of such a stringent regulation would be inconvenient to the owners of animals within the prescribed area; but such inconvenience was, he submitted, inevitable, if they were to cope effectually with the disease.

Amendment proposed, In page 9, line 18, to leave out from the first word "and," to the end of the Clause, in order to insert the words "shall prescribe that the area, within a radius of not less than, one mile from the infected place, shall become and be an infected district."—(Mr. James Barclay.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'declare accordingly' stand part of the Clause."

MR. GOLDNEY

desired to give one practical illustration against the theory of the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay). There was in his neighbourhood a very large market, where large sales of cattle took place. One of the largest owners of cattle whom he knew, and whose name he could give to the hon. Member for Forfarshire, if necessary, was in the habit of going to this market and buying once a fortnight some 20 or 30 beasts. Knowing that they might have foot-and-mouth disease, and that it was sure to develop itself in a short time, he adopted the precaution of confining them for a fortnight to one particular part of his farm, and for a longer period if the disease developed itself at all. Carrying on that system for a period of two years and upwards, he had never detected a single instance in which foot-and-mouth disease had been communicated to the other portion of his herd, numbering 200 or 300 beasts. If the Committee adopted the Amendment, and declared that two or three miles around that farm should be an infected district, they would put a stop, unnecessarily, to all operations, which would be a great detriment, not only to the individual himself, but to the whole district and community in general.

MR. ARTHUR PEEL

remarked, that he approached the consideration of the Amendment from a somewhat different point of view from that of his hon. Friend who had just sat down (Mr. Goldney). It was a very important Amendment, because the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) proposed to declare a district instead of a place. He wished to quote a case, which he had verified, as against the one referred to by the hon. Gentleman. It occurred at Tenby. In October, 1871, 10 cows there were infected with foot-and-mouth disease. Inquiries were set on foot as to how the contagion had reached them, and it was apparently impossible to ascertain the medium through which the disease had come. But it was ascertained, upon inquiry, that some rams had come through Bristol, from Ireland, and had lain in a field in which the cows were. It was not certain that the rams were affected with disease, but it was certain that the 10 cows took the disease. At a considerable distance from the mainland was an island, and, on the 7th of the same month, the Inspector reported that there were 15 cases of disease upon it; and it was an absolute fact that no animal of any description, except a dog, could by contact have communicated the disease. The argument he deduced from this was that if they attempted to go outside the immediate place where foot-and-mouth disease existed—which he wished them to deal with very stringently—and to make a district, they would get into all sorts of difficulties.

MR. PEASE

said, they could hardly intrust the local authority with the power of declaring a district; but that as they had done in the case of pleuro-pneumonia, so they must do, also, in the case of foot-and-mouth disease, and leave it to the Privy Council to declare the district. With respect to the case cited by his hon. Friend (Mr. Arthur Peel), to show that foot-and-mouth disease might break out, and that it required no animal to carry it to a herd, he would take his own experience. Two years ago, his own cows got foot-and-mouth disease from a neighbouring farm, to which it had been brought from Ireland. The disease spread to a third farm. There was no reason why those three farms should not be made a district, so that the disease might be confined to them, and not be allowed to spread through the country. He agreed with the Secretary to the Treasury, that if they grappled honestly with disease in the homesteads, it might not be necessary to have recourse to districts. But he would leave it in the discretion of the Privy Council to say where a district should begin and end. Let him remind the Committee of what had happened in the case of Denmark. There, instead of maintaining the various regulations which they once had for foot-and-mouth disease, cattle plague, and pleuro-pneumonia, they amalgamated them in the year 1875 into one class of regulations affecting all these diseases, and the result had been that they succeeded in stamping out foot-and-mouth disease, with the exception of one case which occurred on one farm.

MR. RYLANDS

thought the Committee were now in a very difficult and critical position with regard to the Bill. The Amendment which they were now considering really enabled them to determine whether or not they would attempt to deal with foot-and-mouth disease in this country in a manner which was at all likely to stamp it out. The question was one of very great and material importance, and one in which the country was being led to take a considerable amount of interest, because he would remind the Committee that the only raison d'etre of this Bill was that the Government were proposing to adopt some stringent measures, with a view to stamp out foot-and-mouth disease. He put aside the question of rinderpest and pleuro-pneumonia, as to which he did not complain of the arrangements made in the Bill. But hon. Gentlemen knew quite as well as he did that the main object of the Bill was to deal with foot-and-mouth disease, in order, if possible, to enable the Privy Council to lay down such an uniform and regular system as would lead to the stamping out of the disease. But how was that object met? No doubt, the clause with which they were now dealing—Clause 22—did something in that direction. It was quite clear that, viewed in connection with Clause 26, there would be a power in the Privy Council, if they thought fit, to take very stringent measures indeed with regard to this disease. But what did they find? That the more they discussed this clause, the greater was the disposition which they observed on the part of the Government to water down these restrictions. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were becoming more and more disinclined to carry out the restrictions which alone were necessary to stamp out the disease. His hon. Friend the Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) had proposed an Amendment which had been described as absurd and impracticable; but the original Bill, as introduced in "another place," contained a similar provision, although it was not contained in the present Bill. Moreover, they were in possession of the views of the Privy Council on this subject—that was to say, they knew the opinions entertained by their permanent officials in the Veterinary Department with regard to it. Judging from the statements recorded in the Report of the Privy Council, these gentlemen looked upon the proposals now in the Bill as very inefficient to attain the object in view. His object in alluding to this matter was this—the country Party had put a strong pressure upon the Government to induce them to shut out the foreign supply, with a view to get rid of foot-and-mouth disease. They had persuaded the Government to bring in a Bill, which as originally framed would, to a very great extent, have stamped out the trade in live animals imported into this country. Its provisions had, no doubt, been very materially altered. Considerable concessions had been made, and the Bill now occupied a very different position. But what he contended was that unless the Government were prepared to adopt measures which would stamp out foot-and-mouth disease in this country, they would be called upon to make still further concessions with regard to the import of foreign cattle. He would, therefore, press upon the Committee that they should consider favourably the Amendment proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay).

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, he understood that the Amendment proposed to extend the place which at present was left to the discretion of the local authority, and to fix the area at a radius of one mile from the infected spot. Now, the discussion had already been before the Committee, and the arguments which had been raised against the proposal on a former occasion must still be fresh in the minds of hon. Members. Those arguments relied mostly upon the impossibility of carrying out such a provision as that in crowded districts, and he had himself pointed out its impractibility in such a town as London. Let them take the radius of one mile in London, and see what an extent that covered. He believed that the Committee had already come to a decision adverse to that method of dealing with the case, and he hoped they would continue to maintain that opinion.

MR. CHAPLIN

said, that if the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) was desirous of making the Bill really an effectual one for stamping out disease, he would tell him how he could do so. Let him persuade the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) to withdraw his Amendment in favour of that of the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease). Now, that Amendment did this—it gave power to the Privy Council to declare a district, and that advantage would be obvious at once. Let them take the case of 10 or 12 farms scattered about. Foot-and-mouth disease might break out in one of those farms, and, instead of drawing a circle of exactly a mile round it, you put it in the power of the Privy Council to say—"We will make the whole of these farms into a district, and stop the disease in it." He attached great importance to the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Durham, and hoped that the Committee would accept it.

MR. M'LAGAN

said, he would advise the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Durham. The great value of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Forfarshire was that it made it compulsory upon the local authority to extend the limit of an infected place. Whatever the local authorities had the power to do should be compulsory upon them. He thought, at present, they were far too lax in imposing the rules laid down by the Privy Council.

MR. MUNTZ

said, that now the Committee appeared to him to have realized the difficulty of dealing with the subject. If the law were made sufficiently stringent to carry out its object, he should be only too glad to see it enforced; but it appeared that the public would not submit to such stringency. But if the law was not sufficiently stringent, it was of no use whatever. He had, personally, always objected to the Bill, because he thought it was impracticable; but he thought they ought to give it a fair chance, and the Bill having got so far, he thought they ought to give it every possible facility for becoming law. Under the circumstances, if they wished to carry the Bill, there was only one possible way of doing so, and that was to leave it to the Privy Council to decide the details. It was perfectly absurd to talk of a mile radius—as in the case of Southwark, where there were a number of dairies on the other side of the river, and the limit would include a great part of the City.

SIR, ANDREW LUSK

said, he should be glad to know whether hon. Members wished to pass the Bill or not. He considered the Amendment to be a frivolous one, and one entirely contrary to common sense. It was not an Amendment which a farmer's friend would impose.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, he was afraid he must ask his hon. Friends to allow himself and his constituents to settle the question. He did not speak without experience. He entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), when he said that nothing but cattle plague restrictions relating to slaughter would prove effectual in exterminating disease. Now, the Amendment was said to be ridiculous, but he had had a good deal to do with exterminating cattle disease in Aberdeen. They laid down, in all cases where cattle plague appeared, that the area within a mile of the spot should be an infected place, into which no cattle should be allowed to come, and from which none should be allowed to go. There was a certain exception made in the case of public highways and railways. Now, what was there impracticable in preventing any movement of dairy in London, within the radius of a mile? All he was desirous of was having some area within which there must be isolation. His objection to the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease) was that it was entirely permissive. The entire Bill would be at the discretion of the Privy Council or of the local authority, and if not at the discretion of those two, it would be at that of the Inspector. He wished the House to declare that, under certain circumstances, it should be imperative to have isolated places in the case of foot-and-mouth disease. If the Committee should indicate to the Privy Council that they were unwilling there should be isolated places at all, were they to expect that the Privy Council would declare those places isolated under the power given to them? The Privy Council had power to regulate what was going to take place within an infected place, and they would have power to modify the restrictions to such an extent as to make them no very excessive hardship or annoyance to anyone. But he wanted to know this—if they were going to have the slaughter of all animals from abroad, were they prepared to submit to severe regulations at home? What they complained of was that in Scotland they were carrying out such regulations under the existing Act, and under the authority which the Privy Council had granted to the local authority, while the same powers were not exercised with vigilance in England.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 33; Noes 272: Majority 239.—(Div. List, No. 228.)

MR. PEASE

said, that having already spoken on the clause, he should not trouble the Committee further concerning it, save to say that if the Amend- ment he was about to move was accepted, he had placed on the Paper new clauses, which would prevent any markets or fairs being held in such districts as would be affected by his present proposal without the consent of the Privy Council, and would so prevent any animals being moved. This, he thought, would provide more efficient means than was afforded by the Bill for dealing with foot-and-mouth disease. He would, therefore, move in page 9, line 36, after "thereon," to insert the following sub-section:— 10. The Privy Council may, at any time, if they think fit, on any evidence satisfactory to them, by Order, declare any district wherein a place infected with foot-and-mouth disease is situate, to be a district infected with foot-and-mouth disease, and may from time to time, if they think fit, by Order, extend the limits of such district.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON,

said, as he understood the sub-section proposed, it would have the effect of applying the same regulations to pleuro-pneumonia and foot-and-mouth disease as far as the action of the Privy Council was concerned. With regard to the use of the word "district" in the Schedule to the Bill, he admitted that possibly some ambiguity might arise; and if the Committee thought it would, in certain circumstances, be better to substitute the word "area" for "district," he should have no objection to that being done. At the same time, he must say that where the word "district" alone was used, it meant the district under the control of a local authority, where the word "infected" preceded the word "district," there came in the discretion in the Privy Council to extend or contract the boundaries. This, he thought, would meet all the necessities of the case.

MR. SYNAN

said, there were several objections to this Amendment, the first of which was as to the meaning of the word "district," in reference to which no attempt at a definition had been made. He could understand the clause if it left the Privy Council to define the districts; but it did nothing of the sort. It assumed that the "districts" were well defined at present, and gave power to the Privy Council to declare any or all of them ''infected'' at any time. As far as he could see, the only definition of a district contained in the Schedule in- cluded the whole county in which any particular infected place might be situate. If he was right in this interpretation of the Schedule, it came to this—that in the case of one infected farm in a county, it would be the duty of the authorities to declare the whole county infected, and to prevent the movement of any cattle within such county, without giving a power to the Privy Council to limit the restriction to one particular town-land, or to any other area which might seem most convenient and expedient as far as the production of food was concerned. Unless the hon. Member for South Durham chose to define narrowly what he meant by the word "district," he (Mr. Synan) could not support the proposal before the Committee.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, he had forgotten when, addressing the Committee a short time before, to ask the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease) not to press his sub-section in the words in which it had been drawn. The Government was perfectly willing to accept the principle of the Amendment, and would bring up on the Report a proposal which would carry it into effect.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

thought all that was wished might be attained by applying the same regulations to cattle disease, to pleuro-pneumonia, and to foot-and-mouth disease. At the present time there was no power given to the Privy Council, or to any other authority, to define what a district was. There was power given to increase a district, without power to define it. He had no doubt that if the Secretary to the Treasury took the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease), having stated that he accepted its principle, he would be able so to frame the clause as to bring it back to the form in which it was when it was moved in the House of Lords.

LORD ELCHO

said, he voted against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Forfar (Mr. J. W. Barclay) solely because he thought the proposal now before the Committee would better attain the object at which he aimed. As a Scotch Member, he must be allowed to protest against the assumption that he spoke for the whole of the Scottish agricultural classes, and practically for the whole of the Members representing the agricultural constituencies. As a proof that the hon. Member was wrong in his assumption, it might be mentioned that, as far as he (Lord Elcho) could see, no single Member for a Scotch agricultural constituency voted for the proposal of the hon. Member.

SIR HENRY JACKSON

suggested to the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease) and the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury, that they might save trouble and cause the Act to work more satisfactorily, by attaching the sub-section proposed to Clause 23, to which it more closely referred.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

reminded the hon. and learned Baronet (Sir Henry Jackson) that he had accepted the principle of the sub-section, and that the necessary alterations in the draft of the Bill would be made to meet the altered state of things. In making these alterations, it might be found advisable to act upon the suggestion of the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Coventry.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

thought words should be added to the clause similar to those included in Clause 16, in order to give the authorities similar powers in relation to pleuro-pneumonia and foot-and-mouth disease.

MR. SYNAN

complained that there was no definition of the word "district," and that, therefore, it would have no meaning, either in Clause 16, or in the one under consideration. He, therefore, thought it would not be possible to carry out the principle of the proposal of the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease), unless words were introduced to define the meaning of the word district.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

moved, in page 9, at the end of the Clause, to add the words— This section, notwithstanding anything therein contained, is to be construed and have effect, subject to the subsequent section in this Act contained, whereby the Privy Council are required to make by Order provisions respecting the case of animals supposed to be infected while exposed for sale, or exposed in a market, fair, sale-yard, or place of exhibition, and the other circumstances specified in the same section, and, generally while being on land, or in a place other than land, which shall be a place in the possession or occupation or under the control of the owner of the animal, He was sorry the proposal was not in the hands of hon. Members in print; but he had brought it down at the earliest possible moment, as a consequence of what passed on the previous evening.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

asked, whether it was intended to introduce similar words in Clause 16, with regard to pleuro-pneumonia?

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said he must oppose the proposal of the hon. Baronet, on the ground that it would stultify the acceptance by the Government of the principle contained in the sub-section to Clause 22, which had recently been moved by his hon. Friend the Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease).

MR. GREGORY

admitted that there was some inconvenience in discussing an important proposal, which was not in the hands of hon. Members in print; but he thought the Committee should take this to a considerable extent upon the faith of the draftsman, who had, to the best of his ability, embodied the basis of the understanding arrived at by the Committee on the previous day. He could not see much in the objection of the hon. Member for Birmingham to the proposal of the Government. What it was proposed to do was to give the Privy Council authority, on its being reported to them by the local authorities that they considered a particular district to be infected, to declare it an infected district. There would be no hindrance to the power of the Privy Council to deal with fairs and markets. He was, he must confess, sorry that the Amendment had been brought forward at all; because it appeared to him that there was in reality no difficulty as to the construction of the clause as it stood, which he thought was perfectly consistent with the rest of the Bill.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

did not know whether the Government were prepared to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) to Clause 24. If they did, the nature of the proposal now under the consideration of the Committee would be materially altered. The whole difficulty arose out of the objections which had been raised by the Irish Members. It was impossible, therefore, to look without considerable suspicion on a proposal which would mitigate the severity of the clause, and, in that way, satisfy those hon. Members who were in favour of letting fairs and markets alone. Mr. James Howard, who was a great authority on the subject, stated in his evidence before the Committee upstairs, that nearly all foot-and-mouth disease originated with cattle which were brought from fairs or markets. His hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) had quoted one part of the evidence of Professor Brown, with reference to the question; but there was another part of it which was even still stronger. Professor Brown was asked what measures he would propose with regard to internal restrictions as to foot-and-mouth disease; and his answer was that he would prevent the holding of fairs and markets, except under the authority of the Privy Council upon a licence, which should be given only under special circumstances. In answer to a further question, Professor Brown expanded that view; and it was, therefore, he thought, clear, from the testimony of the highest authorities, that there was the greatest possible danger as to the spread of the disease connected with fairs and markets, and that it was desirable the Committee should look with great suspicion in all matters of the kind upon the concessions which were made to the wishes of the Irish Members, inasmuch as their operation would be to relax the provisions of the Bill.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

would only repeat what he had said before, that he was prepared to accept the principle of the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease), and that he would introduce into the clause all such Amendments as might be necessary to put it back into its proper form. The objection which was taken by the Irish Members was urged against the discretion which was given to the local authorities, and the necessity that that discretion should be controlled in some way, as he believed it would be by the powers vested in the Privy Council by Clause 26. That, however, in no way interfered with the present arrangement.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, that what he understood the hon. Baronet to mean was that words should be introduced into the Bill providing that no sale of cattle should be held in a district infected with foot-and-mouth disease, except by licence from the Privy Council. If the Government were prepared to give the assurance, he saw no difficulty in accepting the words proposed, which, however, might require some alteration, on the understanding that fairs and markets were to be dealt with in the same way for foot-and-mouth disease as for pleuro-pneumonia.

SIR HENRY JACKSON

thought it would be better for the Secretary to the Treasury to withdraw the Amendment, and bring up words to the same effect when the Committee came to Clause 26. He had followed the discussion attentively, and he must confess he found it exceedingly difficult to form an opinion as to the effect of the Amendment. It was not easy to say whether it meant that nothing should be done by the local authority without the consent of the Privy Council, or whether, the local authority having made one Order and the Privy Council another, the Order of the Privy Council was to prevail.

MR. SYNAN

hoped the Committee and the Government would keep faith with him, for it was on that understanding that he had consented to withdraw his Amendment. He had asked the Government not to act upon the recommendation of those who, all along, had opposed the Bill, and whose object it was to defeat it; and if the present Amendment were brought forward with the view of obtaining their support, he certainly should divide the Committee against it. He could, however, scarcely suppose that the Government would act contrary to the promises which they made when he withdrew his Amendment, which proposed to meet the difficulty of pleuro-pneumonia or foot-and-mouth disease springing up suddenly at a fair or market.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

hoped the Committee would adopt the Amendment without further discussion. It had been carefully considered by the draftsman of the Bill, and would carry out practically what the Committee, at an earlier stage of its proceedings, seemed to think was desirable. It was simply proposed that in the case of any sudden outbreak of disease, the local authorities should be restrained by the Privy Council, and should receive instructions from the Privy Council as to the mode of dealing with such disease. The Amendment would not interfere with the action of the Privy Council as to the regulation of fairs and markets, which might be held within an infected district. He could not see, he might add, how there could be any practical objection to it; for neither the Irish Members nor anyone else could be desirous that a fair or market should be held in an infected district, and disease distributed in that way throughout the country. What, in his opinion, the Amendment would really effect would be to limit the powers of the local authority by previous instructions from the Privy Council as to the mode of dealing with sudden outbreaks of disease at fairs or markets.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

asked, whether the 3rd Schedule would include foot-and-mouth disease?

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, he was prepared to adopt the principle sanctioned by the Committee, and to restore the clause relating to foot-and-mouth disease to the same condition as that relating to pleuro-pneumonia. It would, of course, be for the draftsman to consider whether the Schedule would apply to both, or whether identical terms should be inserted in a separate Schedule with regard to foot-and-mouth disease.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, he was satisfied, if it was intended that the same regulations should be made applicable to both diseases.

Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.

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

THE O'CONOR DON

said, he wished to make a few observations before the clause was agreed to. The Irish Members were placed in a somewhat difficult position in consequence of the action of the Government in connection with the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr.Pease). The Government did not accept that Amendment, but undertook to bring up words at a future time to give it effect. Without knowing the extent to which those words would go, he should not like to say that he would be prepared to adopt them. That the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Durham was a very important one, there could be no question. It appeared to be a reversal of the decision at which the House of Lords had arrived, after very long and careful investigation. That being so, he did not think the mode of passing the Amendment now proposed was at all satisfactory. It should not, he thought, be agreed merely on what was called a general understanding, without knowing the exact form in which it would be inserted in the Bill. Before, therefore, the clause under discussion was adopted by the Committee, he desired to guard himself individually against being supposed to adopt the proposal of the Government with respect to that particular Amendment, or being in any way pledged to the Amendment in a subsequent clause, of which the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) had given Notice.

MR. SYNAN

also wished to say that he held himself perfectly free, as he believed did the Irish Members generally, with respect to the Amendment, until he saw the precise words by which the Secretary to the Treasury proposed to give it effect.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 23 (Declaration or extension of infected place in foot-and-mouth disease by Privy Council).

MR. SYNAN

moved the insertion, in page 9, line 42, sub-section 2, after the word "fit," of the words "on sufficient and satisfactory evidence." His object was to provide that the Privy Council should issue Orders for the declaration or extension of infected places only on evidence which should appear to them to be satisfactory and sufficient.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, he had no objection to the Amendment, if the hon. Member would only adopt the words of the previous subsection, so that they might be in harmony.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made, in page 9, line 42, by inserting after the word "fit," the words "on any evidence satisfactory to them."

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 24 (Rules for foot-and-mouth disease).

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he thought it would be well to postpone the clause until the Committee were in possession of the precise words by which his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury proposed to give effect to the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease).

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

did not think there was the slightest necessity for postponing the clause. There were two Schedules, one of which applied to foot-and-mouth disease and the other to pleuro-pneumonia. They differed at the present moment, but he should see that they were made to agree. That being so, he hoped the Committee would at once agree to the clause.

Clause agreed, to.

Clause 25 (Declaration of freedom from foot-and-mouth disease), verbally amended, and agreed to.