Disease and Movement, generally. (Hansard, 22 July 1878)

§ MR. RYLANDS
said, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to 2065 Sub-section xix. of the clause, because it had rather an important bearing in connection with the discussions which they had had in Committee on the Bill. The words of the sub-section were— For prohibiting or regulating the holding of markets, fairs, exhibitions, and sales of animals. The first sentence of the clause said— The Privy Council may, from time to time, make such General or Special Orders as they think fit, subject and according to the provisions of this Act, for, amongst other things, what he had just now mentioned. Owing to the intervention of the Irish Members, they had had a great deal of conversation on the subject of the powers to be granted by the Bill with regard to the holding of fairs and markets, and it appeared to him not to have been a very important conversation; because, in point of fact, under the clause they were then considering, apart from Clauses 22 and 25, the Privy Council had absolute power, in the words of the sub-section, to prohibit or regulate the holding of fairs, markets, exhibitions, or sales of cattle. The effect of that was that the Privy Council might, if they thought fit to exercise it, put a stop to the holding of fairs and markets in any position or part of the country, without declaring an infected district. They had a deal to say the other day about the Privy Council declaring the district in which the Bill should operate with regard to its restrictions; but, practically, under that sub-section the Privy Council would have ample power to prohibit any market they thought fit. That seemed to him to be a matter of serious consequence, inasmuch as there were no governing words in it to restrict the power of the Council, and they had not heard from the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, up to the present time, what was to be the policy of the Privy Council in respect to that very important matter. Of course, if the Privy Council chose to deal carelessly with markets, perhaps they would decide not to interfere with them, except in case of prevalence of disease in any given district. Then, he said, they would not carry out the recommendations of their own Departmental officers. Now, he thought that it was really important that they should bear in mind 2066 that the Veterinary officer of the Privy Council entertained a very decided opinion as to the course which ought to be taken to put a stop to foot-and-mouth disease, and he really must ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, to satisfy them as to whether the Privy Council, carrying out the important powers they were now asking the Committee to give them—whether they did intend to exercise that power on the advice of the Veterinary officer, or whether they meant to give him the go-bye, and treat his advice as if it was worthy of no attention at all? He thought they would see very soon why it was important that they should get from the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury an absolute statement as to the policy which would be carried out by the Privy Council. It was quite evident from the Report of the Committee which was presented to the Privy Council last year, that Professor Brown was very decidedly of opinion that if they wanted to put a stop to foot-and-mouth disease in that country, they must deal with markets and fairs in a very stringent manner. Professor Brown said the one absolute essential thing was to stop the movement of animals from premises where foot-and-mouth disease existed, and for that purpose it was necessary to effect changes in the present system, and that fairs and markets must be placed under competent supervision. Now, that was the recommendation of the Veterinary Inspector of the Privy Council. Of course, it would be necessary for the market authorities, in exercising control, to have the power to prohibit the holding of markets. The point he wished to get at was this—Would the Privy Council take that course or not? Were they prepared to act upon the advice of their own officer, and, in the event of disease appearing in a market, were they prepared to take steps to prohibit markets, and to insist upon the slaughter of all the animals that might be present? If they were prepared to do so, he knew that hon. Gentlemen from Ireland would raise such an outcry that the Government would not care to meet it. Evidently, they were not prepared to do it, and he wanted the Committee to understand that, practically, the Bill, so far as foot-and-mouth disease was concerned, was a sham. Some people 2067 seemed to think that isolation of the infected animals would suffice; but foot-and-mouth disease was so insidious in its character, that if a flock were sent into a fair or market, and two or three of the number were found to be diseased, nobody could tell how far the infection might spread. He thought that, under the uncertainty which existed, he was quite justified in asking that the Government should make it clear what policy they intended to pursue. Was it intended, in the event of an outbreak of disease in a market, to carry out the recommendation of the Veterinary officers of the Privy Council, and insist upon the slaughter of the animals? If it were not intended to adopt such a course, the Privy Council would, he repeated, fail to carry out measures which, in the opinion of their own officers, were most essential as a means of stamping out disease. During the sitting of the House of Lords' Committee, Professor Simonds was asked if he agreed with the opinion of Professor Brown, and he replied that he did. The Professor said— I agree generally with it. There might be a difficulty with regard to slaughtering all the fat animals—perhaps that might be thought a strong measure; but when the object is to stamp out disease, I hardly see how you can stop short of that. He wished to know whether the Privy Council were prepared to throw over those opinions—the opinions of the two most distinguished veterinary authorities in the country—or not? He was not recommending them to adopt those opinions; but he again said that the Committee were clearly entitled to know what the intention of the Government was in the matter. He could tell the Secretary to the Treasury that if the Government were not prepared to adopt those opinions with the view of stamping out foot-and-mouth disease, he should claim different treatment with reference to foreign imports than the Government had yet shown a disposition to concede. The Government were evidently on the horns of a dilemma.

THE CHAIRMAN
I understand the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) intends to close his speech by moving an Amendment to the clause. If he does not propose to move an Amendment, he is clearly departing from the Rules of the Committee.

§ MR. RYLANDS
said, he ought, perhaps, to have said the commencement that he was prepared to move the omission of the 19th sub-section he had read. He was sorry to trespass upon the attention of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid-Lincolnshire, upon whom he feared he was inflicting his remarks—as, indeed, upon the House—in vain. The hon. Gentleman would find, by referring to the clause, that it provided that the Privy Council might make such special or general Orders for prohibiting or regulating the holding of fairs and markets, exhibitions and sales of animals, as they deemed expedient. His (Mr. Rylands') object was clear. It was to ascertain what was likely to be the policy of the Privy Council. If the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury would say that the Government did not intend to prohibit the holding of markets, nor the slaughter of all the fat cattle that might be present, in the event of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, he should quite understand what the Bill was, and so would the Committee. The Government proposed to give great powers to the Privy Council, and they refused to give the Committee an idea as to how these powers would be exercised. Unless some explanation was vouchsafed, he, for one, should decline to give the Privy Council the powers they asked. He begged to move, with the view of raising the question, the omission of the words— For prohibiting or regulating the holding of markets, fairs, exhibitions, and sales of animals.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
hoped that if the Committee intended to make any progress with the Bill they would not too often revert to former discussions. The whole of this question was raised the last time they were in Committee, and was thoroughly debated. He stated then, as fully as he possibly could, the answer which the hon. Member now sought. He stated, in reply to an hon. Gentleman from Ireland 2069 what the Government proposed to do with regard to the restraining powers of local authorities in case of a sudden outbreak of disease in any fair or market. On that occasion, he referred the Committee to the general powers which existed under the Act of 1869, by which the Privy Council, and the local authorities with power delegated from the Privy Council, could stop fairs and markets in districts where disease prevailed. He also alluded to the 75th section of the Act, under which the Privy Council might from time to time make such orders as were deemed expedient for certain purposes, including prohibiting or regulating the holding of markets, fairs, exhibitions, or sales of animals. Under that the local authorities had powers for prohibiting or regulating markets, fair, &c., within their district; when authorized so to do by the Privy Council. Those powers were re-enacted in the 19th sub-section of the present clause, the powers being those which the Privy Council possessed when disease was rife in a particular district; while the regulations to be issued under Clause 26, guiding the action of local authorities and their Inspectors, would take effect in case disease broke out suddenly in any market or fair. That was the explanation which he ventured to give on the last occasion, and he believed it fully showed what was the law applicable, at the present moment, to markets and fairs when infection was rife in a particular district.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
observed, that whatever the powers of the Privy Council might be, their practice had not been to stop fairs or markets on account of foot-and-mouth disease. At one time their powers were so great that they could do almost anything; but they had never attempted to put those powers in force. He was not surprised at the question which had been raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), but he hoped it would not be pressed to a division. The Government had now shown quite clearly what it was their intention to do. They had accepted the principle that the Schedule for foot-and-mouth disease and for pleuro-pneumonia should be the same, and the result would be this—that no market, fair, exhibition, or sale of cattle could be held in any place or district where foot-and-mouth prevailed, 2070 except by licence of the Privy Council.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
believed the local authorities had stopped markets in his own immediate neighbourhood.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
hoped the Government would not lay down hard-and-fast rules for foot-and-mouth disease, as there were a great variety of circumstances under which it might arise. It might be advisable to slaughter animals in isolated cases, so as to effectually prevent the disease from spreading; but if the cattle over a wide district were affected, slaughtering would be absurd. He hoped, further, that no invidious distinction would be made between fat and store cattle. If fat cattle carried disease, he was sure store cattle would; and he did not see, therefore, why they should be treated differently. As long as fat cattle and store cattle were subject to the same regulations, the position, of Ireland and England would be identical; but if fat cattle were placed under a disadvantage, it was clear that the Irish farmers would suffer unfairly. ["Divide, divide!"] He begged to inform hon. Members that he would speak on this subject as long as he chose. Coming, as he did, from, the second largest county in Ireland, he was entitled to be heard, more especially as this was the first time the important question of fat and store cattle, which affected Ireland so closely, had been raised.

§ MR. ANDERSON
believed the whole difficulty arose from the concession made to the Irish Members the other night. The English and Scotch Members had expressed no jealousy of the interference of the local authorities; but the Irish Members entered a protest against it, in consequence of which the Government took fairs and markets out of the control of the local authorities. The Privy Council was now made the responsible body; but still the Irish Members were not satisfied. His object in rising, however, was not to point out the difficulty of satisfying Ireland, but to ask what guarantee they had that the Privy Council in Ireland would follow the same rules as the Privy Council in this country? There was no power taken in this Bill to compel the Irish Privy Council to follow the lead of the Privy Council here; and he, for one, after the strong protest made by Irish 2071 Members against fairs and markets being interfered with, had not the slightest confidence that the authorities in Ireland would venture to take as strong measures in regard to fairs and markets as would be taken by the authorities here.

§ MR. BRISTOWE
thought the clause was better as it stood. There might be reasons for the Amendment; but it seemed to him to unduly limit the powers of the Privy Council.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
was prepared to stand by the clause as it was; but the object of introducing those words into it was merely to call the attention of the Privy Council specially to the fact that uniformity was the principle upon which the Government wished the Act to be worked.

§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY
wished to know how far the principle of uniformity was to be extended as between the different borough and county authorities? The complaint hitherto had been that one local authority had one set of regulations, and another another.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
said, the Privy Council, in laying down regulations for the guidance of the local authorities, would keep in view that uniformity of action which was so strongly recommended by the Committee of last year.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
called attention to Sub-sections 32, 33, 34, and 35 of the clause, all of which he thought extraordinarily vague. Sub-section 32, moreover, appeared to be unnecessary, because it was really contained in Subsection 4. The definition of diseases in this clause and these sub-sections was so extended as to become no definition at all, and the definition of animals was equally comprehensive. It would be quite as well, indeed, to pass the Bill without any definition at all of either animals or diseases. When they came to the Schedule dealing in general terms 2072 with animals and diseases, they would really be dealing not with the diseases and animals mentioned in the Bill, but with all diseases and all animals whatsoever. The words of Sub-section 33 gave power to extend— For all or any of the purposes of this Act, the definition of animals in this Act, so that the same shall for those purposes comprise any animals, in addition to those mentioned in this Act. Then, Sub-section 34 extended— For all or any of the purposes of this Act, the definition of disease in this Act, so that the same shall for those purposes comprise any disease of animals, as defined either by this Act or by Order of Council, in addition to the diseases mentioned in this Act. Sub-section 35 was, if possible, even wider. It provided— Generally, for the better execution of this Act, or for the purpose of in any manner preventing the introduction or spreading of disease (whether any such Order is of the same kind as any kind specified or enumerated in this Act or not). It seemed as if they were to make provisions for diseases of all kinds, even those affecting human beings, there being no limiting words whatever. In order to raise the question in a convenient form, he would at present only move the omission of Sub-section 32. It was certain that Sub-section 32 and Sub-section 34 could not both be necessary. He was aware that the case against Sub-section 32 was less strong than against 33, because the former only stated the existing law; whereas Sub-section 33 established an entirely new order of things. But the existing law, as stated by Sub-section 32, was so vague that it had better not be incorporated into the Bill; and, therefore, he begged to move that that sub-section be omitted.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
hoped the Amendment would not be accepted by the Committee. Sub-section 32 continued to the Privy Council the power they at present possessed of dealing with other diseases and other animals than those specified in the Bill. The hon. Baronet described that and the following sub-sections as proposing to deal with every imaginable disease and every imaginable animal. If, however, the hon. Member would refer to the Act of 1869, he would find that very 2073 similar powers were there given to the Privy Council. Clause 75 of that Act, after reciting the different Orders which the Privy Council might from time to time make, went on to say— And generally, any Orders whatever which they may think it expedient to make for the better execution of this Act, or for the purpose of in any manner preventing the introduction or spread of contagious or infectious disease in animals in Great Britain. That Provision gave the Privy Council power to deal with any known or unknown disease that might arise; and the object of the present clause was to leave that power to the Privy Council. He trusted the Committee would not deem it wise to hamper the discretion of the Privy Council in this matter. The clause did not prejudice anyone; and should any new disease arise, it would enable the Privy Council to deal with it, without coming to Parliament for additional powers.

§ MR. LYON PLAYFAIR
said, he had read the sub-section quite differently from his hon. Friend (Sir Charles W. Dilke). The Committee had already passed, with little objection, a clause which gave the Privy Council most extraordinary powers. That clause—the 28th—gave the Privy Council the power, which was really enormous, of slaughtering any animal for any disease. As he read the present clause, it was a sort of instruction to the Privy Council as to how they should interpret Clause 28, and served to limit and define the extraordinary powers which that clause conferred upon them.

MR. PAGET
preferred the provisions of the old Act, which not only included the ordinary contagious diseases of animals, but also glanders and farcy, and gave power to the Privy Council to add to the number of diseases dealt with. It also defined animals so clearly that none could be included which were not alluded to in the Act; whereas the present clause gave power to the Privy Council to include, under the word "animals," anything they pleased. He could not help thinking that it would be better if the Definition Clause of this Bill followed the old Act, or, at all events, if it included glanders and farcy, and contained words enabling the Privy Council to extend the definition of disease.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
agreed with the hon. Member who had just spoken, that the form of the old Act would have been better than the present clause. It was a mere question of drafting, however, and did not much matter. With regard to the 28th clause, he begged to remind his right hon. Friend (Mr. Lyon Playfair) that it did not authorize the slaughter of all animals, in the usual sense of the word, but of what the Bill defined as "animals." He did not well see how the Committee could withhold from the Privy Council the powers proposed to be conferred on them by Subsection 32, which only stated the law at present existing; and, therefore, he hoped his hon. Friend would not press his Amendment.

§ COLONEL BARNE
urged that the Privy Council should have power, if necessary, to stop the running of hounds, or the passage of drovers' dogs through infected districts, as there was no doubt that these animals could carry disease.

§ MR. ANDERSON
was of opinion that the 32nd sub-section was unnecessary, as both Sub-sections 34 and 35 were infinitely more comprehensive.

§ MR. WHITWELL
reminded the Committee that they were only giving the Privy Council power to apply the Act when, in their discretion, it became necessary to do so, without making the exercise of that power imperative.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, he would not, of course, divide in view of the opinion of the Committee; but should propose to divide against Subsection 34 when it was reached. He maintained that Sub-section 32 was unnecessary, if Sub-section 34 was to be passed.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, that Sub-section 33 extended the definition of the term animals, so that it it would apply to any kind of animals, and thereby rendered Clause 5 of the Bill altogether unnecessary. He moved the omission of the sub-section.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
reminded the hon. Baronet that the 5th clause of the Bill was inserted for the purpose of limiting the action of the local authorities; while the sub-section under consideration intrusted the Privy Council with powers to take action in case of the introduction to this country 2075 of any fresh description of disease, or of any fresh manifestation of disease. He also reminded the Committee that animals were contemplated by the Bill which did not come under the definition contained in Clause 5. It was possible that, under the Quarantine Clause, such animals might introduce to this country a new disease; and the Privy Council were, by the sub-section, intrusted with power to extend the Act to animals other than those contemplated by Clause 5.

§ MR. RYLANDS
said, they were apparently legislating in panic. The hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) seemed to be of opinion that some extraordinary and unexpected danger might arise, of which they had no experience, and the nature of which they could not anticipate. To pass a clause of the kind under consideration, embracing all descriptions of animals, at the discretion of the Privy Council and with the view of protecting themselves against dangers which never had existed, seemed to him legislation of a character that ought not to be supported; and he should certainly vote for the rejection of that most objectionable clause. The Privy Council ought not to be intrusted with unknown powers for unknown purposes. He thought the powers given to them were, moreover, without any limitation whatever, and trusted that the hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would divide against the sub-section.

MR. GORST
characterized the powers conferred upon the Privy Council by the sub-section as the most extraordinary he had ever known. They amounted to enabling the Privy Council to pass an Act of Parliament without going through the formality of consulting the House. The powers conferred were absolutely unlimited. Of course, it would be said that they would not be used; but it was most objectionable in principle to grant powers for the reason that they were not to be made use of.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
could not help thinking that the hon. Baronet would not press the clause, which was really not wanted. He (Mr. W. E. Forster) thought he could hardly consent to it. They were passing an Act for the stamping out of contagious diseases amongst cattle; and it seemed to him hardly correct to introduce lines including a 2076 perfectly different set of animals. It would be seen by the dictionary that the term animal had a very wide interpretation. Cats and dogs, no doubt, came under that interpretation; but if they were to have a cat and dog Bill, it was desirable that the Committee should know it. The necessity for the clause would exist only in the case of some new disease being communicated to cattle, sheep, and swine, by other animals; but if the Department really thought it necessary to have a protection against a theoretical danger of that kind, it would be easy to say they should have power to regulate the importation of animals likely to give disease against which the Bill was directed. He thought the clause would have to be withdrawn.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
would have been willing to fall in with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had he understood his proposal. He believed the objection of the hon. Member was to the wide definition contained in the sub-section; but he would remember that the existing Act gave power to extend the definition in cases of expediency. He was ready to consider whether the words in question were necessary, and to withdraw the sub-section.

§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY
hoped the Government would obtain for the Privy Council complete powers with reference to the matter then under discussion. He asked the Committee to remember that the cattle plague, which was previously unknown in this country, was introduced in 1865, and that an enormous amount of damage was done by it before it could be dealt with. He was desirous that the Government should have power to deal summarily with any new disease that might at any future time be introduced, as well as with the animals themselves; because, if an Act of Parliament were found to be necessary, irreparable damage might be done before the disease could be dealt with. He hoped that the Secretary to the Treasury would retain in the Bill powers that would enable the Privy Council to act efficiently under such circumstances.

§ MR. EVANS
thought it quite possible, as the hon. and gallant Member for East Suffolk (Colonel Barne) had suggested, that infectious diseases might be conveyed from one part to another by the 2077 movement of hounds or other animals. He therefore hoped that power would be retained in the Bill for dealing with any unexpected disease that might present itself. He believed it to be beyond the power of man to prevent the wandering of cats; but considered that a plan could be carried out which would, when necessary, restrict the movement of dogs. He merely wished to enforce the view of the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay), that the Government should retain the power of dealing efficiently, quickly, and summarily with any new disease.

§ MR. WHITWELL
said, the present interpretation of the clause no doubt included the whole tribe of ferœ. It was well known that, in the North of England, there were cattle and other animals running wild, and that red deer were on the hills in many parts of the country. It seemed to him necessary to possess the power of dealing with new diseases, and to include animals of the kind referred to.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
believed there was a deficiency in the law with respect to the power of dealing with mad dogs that should receive attention from the Government.

§ DR. LUSH
thought that any re-modelling of the clause should be in the direction of limiting its operation.

§ MR. ANDERSON
hoped the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) would be prepared to tell the Committee what were included in the term ruminating animals. He understood that the 2nd sub-section enabled the Privy Council to include the human subject as well as human disease; and it would certainly be convenient to make some provision with reference to these. He was not in favour of leaving out the sub-section as proposed by the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea. (Sir Charles W. Dilke).

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, he now proposed to leave out Sub-section 34, which stood on the same footing as Sub-section 33, inasmuch as it widened the definition relating to disease, while the former widened the definition relating to animals. It was not desirable 2078 to retain a clause of so vague a character to be applied by the Privy Council.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
thought the words proposed to be introduced in the next Sub-section (35) by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) would, practically, cover all that it was desired to obtain. He thought that the Privy Council should have power to deal with any fresh disease that might arise outside the ordinary diseases at present known. He believed that such a power would be obtained by adding to Sub-section 35, after the word "order" in line 32, the words or "such disease."

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
did not see how the Government could get on without Sub-section 34, to which he saw no objection, whilst Sub-section 35 appeared to him rather too strong, and, therefore, open to considerable objections.

MR. PAGET
thought it would be better to let the sub-section remain, because the definition contained therein was not the same as under the existing Act.

MR. GORST
considered it unadvisable to get rid of Sub-section 34 at the cost of being obliged to adopt Sub-section 35. He had no great objection to the former sub-section, although there might be some objection to extending the definition of the term animals.

§ MR. RYLANDS
was of opinion that Sub-section 34 might be very useful, while he objected altogether to Subsection 35. He would retain the former, and give up the latter clause.

§ MR. SYNAN
thought if the Committee desired to make progress with the Bill, it was a matter of perfect indifference which of the two sub-sections was retained.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
said, he should be very sorry to see the words contained in the sub-section—namely, "generally, for the better execution of this Act," struck out. The Privy Council ought to have power to make regulations with the object expressed by the words, and he therefore asked that the sub-section should be retained.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
had no objection to the words in question if the 2079 hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) wished to retain them.

MR. PAGET
thought the sub-section should remain as it then stood. The words of the 75th clause of the existing Act were—"and generally any Order whatsoever for the better execution of this Act," and the wording of the subsection in question was— Generally, for the better execution of this Act, or for the purpose of in any manner preventing the introduction or spreading of disease (whether any such Order is of the same kind as any kind specified or enumerated in this Act or not.") So that, in Section 75 of the existing Act, they had precisely the same powers expressed in almost the same words as those of Sub-section 35 of the present Bill. The provisions of the existing Act were in respect of the words, "Any orders whatsoever," wider and more comprehensive than those contained in Subsection 35 of the Bill then under discussion. He hoped the sub-section would be retained.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, there was a great difference in the clause proposed and in the clause of the Act of 1869. That provision of 1869 was proposed in ignorance of what was necessary to be done, and only eight special powers were given to the Privy Council. Up to the present time, however, there had been a good deal of experience, and the brains of the Secretary of the Veterinary Department had been exercised to find out what would be necessary. The result was that they had before them the 25th section. He had looked into the matter carefully, and with what knowledge he had, and it appeared to him that everything which was wanted was included without Sub-section 35, the wide powers of which were not required. Therefore, he thought, the sub-section might be very easily omitted.

MR. GORST
said, in the case of the Act of 1869 the Privy Council were only allowed to make Orders of the kind contemplated by the Act, which was a very different thing to the proposal now before the Committee. The present Bill would give the Privy Council power to pass an Order which had nothing to do with the Act. Such a proposal was, in his opinion, going too far. It was no use to answer his objection by saying that the Privy Council would not use the 2080 power. If they did not want to use it, they need not seek to get it.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
said, the hon. Baronet would see that a subsequent sub-section to the clause would really apply to everything which ought to be done in the direction he wished, inasmuch as it provided for the supply of water to the persons in charge of the animals. By Sub-section 4 the Privy Council had power to alter the limits of the time during which water should be supplied. Under those circumstances, he thought the greatest precautions had been taken.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, the point of the Amendment was that at present there was no power to punish Railway Companies if cattle had water every 30 hours; whereas it was proposed to punish them if the animals were not watered within that period.

§ MR. PEASE
said, if his hon. Friend carried his Amendment, it would make Railway Companies provide water for animals every 12 hours. That was almost an absurdity in itself; because, if so provided, they could not make the animals drink, and many would not do so at such frequent periods. Those who were acquainted with agriculture knew that the worst thing which could be done for an animal was to give it water every 12 hours. Such a proceeding would be likely to bring on all kinds of diseases and complaints. At the present moment 2081 he did not know how many hundred Orders there were as to the provision of water at stations for cattle; and on the railway of which he was a Director every Order of the Privy Council was carried out as directed. Each animal had a supply of water, and if any would not drink it in the trucks, they were taken out and attended to. That being so, to pass such a provision as that contained in the Amendment would do more harm than good.

§ MR. WHITWELL
said, if the present regulations for watering cattle were kept in force after the passing of the present Bill, he should be satisfied without the adoption of the Amendment.

§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY
thought there was no necessity for watering the cattle every 12 hours. The great object of requiring the provision of water at all was to make the Railway Companies carry the cattle with expedition; and, if they did that, they could carry them any distance within Great Britain in 30 hours.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
objected to the fixing by the Bill of such hours for the supply of water as must necessarily give torture to the beasts. He had that day been talking on the subject with an eminent agriculturist, who said an animal could not be kept for 30 hours without water, unless sustaining injury.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
supported the views of his hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea. He (Mr. W. E. Forster) was, he believed, responsible for the 30 hours' Order; but it was made at a time when the Privy Council were informed that such a period was not too long for an animal to wait without water. Since then, he had been told that 30 hours was too long to keep beasts without water, and that Railway Companies could provide it oftener without inconvenience. Hence he hoped his hon. Friend would press his Amendment to a division.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
said, he had no objection to substitute 24 hours for 30 hours, if it was the wish of the Committee that that should be done.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, that would meet his wishes, and he would withdraw his Amendment.

§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY
regretted that the Secretary to the Treasury should have agreed to such a compromise. The alteration of the clause would make it peremptory on Railway Companies, or the consignors of cattle, to see that they were watered within 24 hours. It might, under some circumstances, be advantageous that cattle should be watered in summer during 24 hours; but he did not think such an advantage would accrue in the winter. Therefore, he hoped the Government would not give way, especially as it was in the power of the Privy Council to alter the time for watering beasts to every 24 hours if they so chose. As the Privy Council already had discretion in so many more important matters, surely they might be allowed the same in such a subject as that of watering animals. He was fully persuaded that to give cattle water every 24 hours would do more injury to them than allowing them to go without for 30 hours.

§ MR. PEASE
did not wish to raise any objection to what the House had done with regard to the hours for water; but he had a very strong impression that when his right hon. Friend below him (Mr. W. E. Forster) originally fixed 30 hours, he did so after a complete inquiry as to what was the practice and what was convenient. Therefore, he made this suggestion to his hon. Friend opposite (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), that he should point out the reason for originally adopting 30 hours, in case any alteration should be proposed on Report.

§ MR. CLARE READ
said, if sheep were to be considered as animals which were to be watered every 24 hours, he could safely state that many would not drink within that time, even on the hottest day.