§ Clause 35 (Local authorities to be treated as incorporated) agreed to.
§ Clause 36 (Committees of local authority) agreed to.
§ Clause 37 (Provision of places for landing of foreign animals).
§ MR. E. S. HOWARD moved, in page 18, line 25, to leave out "foreign."
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONhoped the Amendment would not be pressed. It would interfere with the principle of the Bill. After they had provided for the due inspection of localities, and for the making of a proper attempt to deal with disease as it broke out in the homesteads, both in Ireland and England, if they were now to proceed on the idea of treating Ireland as a 2087 foreign country, they would depart from the principle on which the Bill was founded.
§ MR. WHITWELLhoped that the Amendment would not be withdrawn, but that it would only be postponed until they saw that the arrangement which was made in respect to Irish cattle was satisfactory.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, the hon. Baronet had given an undertaking that he would revise the tolls; and he hoped, at the same time, he would consider the effect of this clause. It appeared to him to give unlimited power to the City of London to charge what tolls they pleased. As regarded existing tolls, he believed they had to obtain some sanction; and he suggested that, in future, it should be necessary that they should obtain the authority of some Department before they were allowed to impose them.
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONpromised to consider the suggestion just made.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 38 (Power for local authority to acquire land).
§ MR. WHITWELLdesired to know whether there was anything in the Bill which prescribed the locality in which the burial-ground for the cattle was to be placed; because the movement of diseased cattle was most important. No doubt, in some harbours and ports, it was difficult to get land where the bodies could be buried; but there ought to be some provision as to the distance and mode in which the animals were to be carried.
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, those were matters which were amongst the powers of the Privy Council; and as difficulty had arisen to find land immediately near the spot where the diseased cattle were slaughtered to bury them, this clause had been put into the Bill for the purpose of giving power to acquire land.
§ MR. WHITWELLasked whether the Government would take into consideration the propriety of not placing the bodies in the river, but burning them?
§ Clause agreed to.
2088§ Clause 39 (Duties of local authorities and enforcement thereof).
§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY moved, in page 19, line 34, to leave out the word "may," and insert "shall." He did this in order to strengthen the hands of the Privy Council. The clause contemplated that certain local authorities might fail to carry out the provisions of the Act, and then the clause said the Privy Council might interfere. His Amendment was that it should be imperative on the Privy Council to see that the Act was carried out in cases where it was obvious that the local authorities were not doing so. He recollected very well that when certain complaints had been hitherto taken to the Privy Council, as regarded local authorities not complying with the law, the reply was that there was no power to compel them. Now, in this clause power was taken to compel them; but it was only a permissive power, which the Privy Council might sometimes be adverse to putting in motion, and, therefore, he desired to make it imperative.
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINhoped the Amendment would not be accepted, because he believed it would lead to great inconvenience, and, in some cases, to hardship. There were an enormous number of regulations contained in this Bill, which, as soon as they became law, the local authorities would be expected to study. Now, it seemed to him very probable that some one of these authorities might, inadvertently, fail to carry out the provisions of the Act, and then under the clause, as it was proposed to be altered by the hon. Member, the Privy Council should be compelled to supersede the local authority, and put in an officer to carry out the Act. This, he thought, would be limiting the discretion of the Privy Council in an absurd manner, especially after the large amount of discretion they had already given that Department. If the hon. Member insisted on his Amendment, he should certainly divide the Committee against him.
§ MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, his Amendment was scarcely of the character which had been described. What he contemplated was that where the local authority, when the Privy Council had directed attention to their failure to carry out the Act, still refused to carry it out, then steps should be taken by the Department 2089 to enforce the Act. He should not object to words being added to the clause to meet any case of inadvertence.
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONconfessed he had sufficient reliance upon the Privy Council to be assured that they would put the Act in force in cases where they found a local authority was not doing so. He, therefore, opposed the Amendment, because it might lead, in some instances, to hardship.
§ MR. J. W. BARCLAYcontended that there was already sufficient discretion left with the Privy Council, and that in this matter the performance of the duty ought to be made imperative on them.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 40 (Inspectors and other officers of local authority) agreed to.
§ Clause 41 (Reports to Privy Council) agreed to.
§ Clause 42 (Orders and regulations of local authorities) agreed to.
§ Clause 43 (Powers of local authorities to be for their district) agreed to.