§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Clause 68 (Communication of Orders from and to Ireland).
§ MR. PEASE
moved, as an Amendment, in lines 16 and 17, to omit the words " Order in Council and every." He thought his object would be best explained by reading the clause as it now stood. It was as follows:—With a view to uniformity of action, every Order in Council and every Order of Council made under this Act shall, with all practicable speed, be communicated to the Privy Council, or to the Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council, as the case may be.He was of opinion that uniformity of action, although it professed to be the object of the clause, would not be secured by it at all. The Orders of Council and Orders in Council were to be communicated from one country to the other — from Great Britain to Ireland, and from Ireland to Great Britain—but there was nothing in the Bill, so far as he could see, that produced that uniformity of action which was so essential in the Orders of the 137 Privy Council in order to insure the successful working of the Act. Consequently, what would be an Order in England would not be an Order in Ireland, and what would be an Order in Ireland would not be an Order in Great Britain. He was sure that his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) would not attribute to him any desire whatever to throw discredit upon the administration in Ireland; but it appeared to him, in this case, that they should have in every possible way the same rules applying to Ireland as to England, and especially the regulations which his hon. Friend opposite proposed to bring in with regard to markets and fairs. Under the clause there would be two jurisdictions, and under those jurisdictions the restrictions applicable to Great Britain, might not be extended to Ireland and the Channel Islands—one of those restrictions being that infected animals should not be permitted to be taken inland unless they were examined and passed by a Privy Council Inspector at the port of debarkation. Having established these very salutary regulations, it might happen in Ireland that there was no inspection at the port of embarkation. He desired to call the attention of the Committee to the very strong evidence given on this point by almost every witness who came from Ireland who was examined before the Select Committee of the House of Lords on the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill during the present Session. Among the witnesses was the hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlow (Mr. Kavanagh), whose opinion upon any question of the kind would carry very great weight with it. In Question 43, the hon. Member was asked—Will you just state whether you approve of the part of the Bill in which there is a distinction made between Ireland and Great Britain?He said, in reply—The first great difference I found in the Bill between Ireland and Great Britain is this —that the working of the Bill is not confided to the same authority in both countries. In England it is intrusted to the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council, in which case we have a highly scientific and experienced authority, working, I may say, under the eye of Parliament, and represented in Parliament by a Minister. I do not want to abuse the institutions of my own country; but, as regards Ireland, I must say I am afraid the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council is a, very 138 starved Office, with hardly any Staff, and quite insufficient to carry out the provisions of the Bill; and, save in so far as the Chief Secretary for Ireland is a Minister in that House, they could hardly call it represented in Parliament. Part IV. of the Bill applies to Ireland only; but Part IV. makes the really active part of the Bill, which is Part II., apply to Ireland. Another difference that I observe, which I must say is, I think, a very important difference, is that, though the Act requires that in England the local Inspectors should be professionally qualified veterinary surgeons, it does not require that that should be the case in Ireland.Further on the hon. Member was asked by Viscount Cardwell—You are very anxious that the same rules that apply to England should apply to Ireland? —Yes. You would object very much to Ireland being treated as in any sense a foreign country in regard to its relations to England? —Yes.He (Mr. Pease) did not wish to weary the House with quotations, because one-half of the evidence in the Blue Book was in the same direction. Mr. Featherstonehaugh, who called himself a very large farmer indeed, was asked—Do you imagine, if the whole of the Veterinary Department of Ireland were put under the English Privy Council in order that we should have qualified practitioners in Ireland, that there would be an objection to pay for those qualified practitioners?—Certainly not; I think it would be a very good thing; and I am certain that they would be willing to pay for it; at all events, the most respectable would.Then, again, Mr. Cullen, a landowner and extensive grazier in Ireland, was asked—Is it your feeling that it would be desirable to place the whole subject of the cattle trade in Ireland under the English Privy Council?— Quito so; I should be very glad if that was done.Mr. Verdon said—I say that the whole Veterinary Department of Ireland is an insufficient Department. To assimilate the administration of the Veterinary Departments of the two countries thoroughly, the head of both Departments should be here, and he should exercise a general supervision over the conduct of the Irish Department. One advantage of that would be this—that in England we have a Minister responsible to Parliament; in Ireland we have not. We have a Department responsible to nobody, undermanned and underpaid.Again, Mr. Gerard, on being asked—Would you have all the regulations put under the English Privy Council?" replied— "Most decidedly.—Do you think it essential that the Inspectors should all be qualified veterinary surgeons?—I do.139 He (Mr. Pease) would not trouble them with any further quotations upon this point. Personally, he was not in favour of having everything done immediately from the Privy Council Office at home, because he felt that it would be placing the authority too far away from the seat of action, It appeared to him that there should be a Privy Council Office in Ireland, worked from the Privy Council Office direct in England, and being independent entirely of the action of the Lord Lieutenant in Council. At the head of an independent branch of the Privy Council in Dublin there might be a competent veterinary surgeon, who thoroughly understood the question, and took a deep interest in the matter, who would be placed in Ireland with a competent staff of Inspectors under him, and who would communicate and act directly with the Privy Council. Such an officer would thoroughly understand the matter, and would be in a position to lay down the best and most proper regulations, and those most suitable for the Irish trade. After all, all the provisions requisite for the stamping out of disease would be readily carried out when they had the full consent and the willing hearts of the people who were to be affected by them. It was under these circumstances that he had been induced to bring the Amendment before the Committee. He had only the one object in view—that they should have one jurisdiction in both countries, and that they should not be liable to have Orders in Council issued by the Lord Lieutenant differing from those issued by the Privy Council in London. If his hon. Friend opposite (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) could not accept his Amendment, which he daresay was somewhat unprofessionally drawn, he thought the Committee ought to require a strong assurance on the part of Her Majesty's Government that it was their intention, having made the clause applicable to both countries, to see that the working of the Act in both countries was identical, so as to insure that the provisions of the Act, were practically carried out by those who understood the interests and working of Irish agriculture. He begged to move the Amendment he had placed on the Paper.
§ MR. SYNAN
said, that, of course, he had little or nothing to say in regard to the intentions of his hon. Friend the 140 Member for South Durham. He gave credit to every hon. Member of that House for being actuated by the best intentions; but he could not help looking upon the proposition of his hon. Friend as an attempt to pass over the Privy Council of Ireland altogether, and to treat it as if it were a petty corporation, to be dealt with under this measure in the way in which the Privy Council in London might deem most fit. It might be, as the hon. Member doubtless would say, that this was not intended in any way as an insult to the Irish Privy Council; but he contended that that would be the consequence of acceding to the Amendment. If legislation of this kind were to be permitted, it would be better to abolish the Privy Council of Ireland altogether, as had often been attempted on that side of the House, and that it should not be allowed to exist as an Executive Government. According to the argument of his hon. Friend the Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease), the Irish Privy Council was incompetent to carry out the provisions of a common Act of Parliament, and to shape the cattle trade of Ireland even with the Orders in Council before them. But upon what was it that such an argument was founded? It was founded on this. It was admitted that the Orders of the Privy Council could not be applied directly to Ireland, and the hon. Member proposed that outside the Privy Council in Ireland there should be a Privy Council Office—that it should, in fact, be attached to the Privy Council in England; that that Office should judge of the particular circumstances of Ireland, and carry the Bill into effect by special Orders. Now, for what purpose, he would ask, did the Privy Council Office exist in Dublin, if it were not for the purpose of shaping the Orders in Council, and making them suitable to the condition and circumstances of Ireland. It was not necessary, nor did it exist for any other purpose; and if uniformity of action was wanted, that uniformity of action would be as well secured by the present Irish Executive, as by the establishment of a Privy Council Office attached to the Council in London, acting independently of the Irish Council. If all that was required was to adapt the Orders in Council to the peculiar circumstances of Ireland, surely that could be done quite as well 141 by the Establishment now in existence as by the creation of a new Office, and without the additional expense which the creation of a new Office would involve. He understood that his hon. Friend the Member for South Durham admitted that an Irishman ought to be at the head of the Privy Council Office in Dublin; and, if so, why not leave things as they were? The proposition of his hon. Friend could only be based upon an argument that the Irish Privy Council Veterinary Department in Dublin was incompetent. If that were not so, it would be just as easy for the Privy Council in Ireland to strengthen it, as for the Privy Council in England. If there was any weakness in the Department, that weakness could be supplied by the Irish Privy Council. He was astonished at an argument such as that, which admitted that an Irishman was to be employed, and yet a separate Office be constituted, passing by the Office in Ireland already existing, and declaring that the Lord Lieutenant and the Council under him were incompetent to shape a clause to meet the circumstances of Ireland. They had been told from the opposite side that they were the bucolic Party, and that they stood, on intellectual grounds, above such low matters as the regulation of the cattle trade. It was said that disease was imported into England from Ireland. What were the facts of the case? What did the Returns show with respect to foot-and-mouth disease and pleuro-pneumonia in Ireland. The Returns from England for 1876 in regard to pleuro-pneumonia showed that in that year there were 5,253 cases in England and Wales. What were the Returns from Ireland? With 1,000,000 cattle more than England and Wales, the cases of pleuro-pneumonia were only 2,379, or less than one-half. They said that Ireland was the cause of bringing disease into England, and yet in this country there was double the amount of disease that existed in Ireland in 1876, and more than double in 1877. This was still more apparent in the Returns of the cases of foot-and-mouth disease. In England, in one month—the month of March—there were 3,170 cases; while the Returns for Ireland for the whole year only showed 174 cases of foot-and-mouth disease. Yet Ireland was a country that required to be governed directly from the Privy Council Office in 142 England; the Privy Council of England were to have an Office in Dublin, and the Lord Lieutenant and the Privy Council of Ireland were to be insulted. At the head of the Office in Dublin an Irishman was to be placed; but, at the same time, the Office was not to be treated as an Executive, but it was to be insulted and set aside. He contended that such an insult ought not to be offered from one country to another, except for an object. His hon. Friend the Member for South Durham stated that his intention was to secure uniformity and regularity of action; but his intention rather appeared to be a continuation of the attempt, which seemed to have been adopted, of setting the Irish Members sitting on that side of the House and those sitting on the other side by the ears. He hoped they would refrain from falling into the trap. As long as he remained a Member of the House he would not tolerate such an insult as this, and, under these circumstances, he should resist strenuously the proposal of his hon. Friend. The clause itself professed to provide uniformity of action, and the rules and regulations laid down by Orders in Council were to be adapted to the circumstances of the country by the Privy Council in Dublin. That Privy Council was, in his opinion, quite as competent to carry out the provisions of the measure as any Privy Council Office they could establish in Ireland. A Privy Council Office already existed in Ireland; and if it was weak, let it be strengthened. He had placed an Amendment on the Paper himself, to provide that veterinary surgeons should be appointed by every local authority in Ireland, and selected for that purpose by their knowledge and skill. He would not go into that question now; but it showed, he thought, that he wanted to strengthen the hands of the Department. He wished, however, to do that without insulting the country; whereas the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for South Durham sought to do the same thing by an insult to the country.
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
said, he had listened to the arguments of the hon. Member for the county of Limerick (Mr. Synan), and could understand the warmth which had been imported into them. At the same time, he felt that the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease), in moving the 143 Amendment, had no wish to insult the sister country, or the Privy Council which formed a part of the Executive of that sister country. [Mr. PEASE: Hear, hear!] He understood that the hon. Member for South Durham hoped to be able by the Amendment to carry out more fully one of the recommendations of the Committee—that, as far as possible, uniformity should prevail in the regulations that were to be put in force throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. But he thought his hon. Friend, on consideration, would see that the Privy Councils, established as they were in both countries, would, undoubtedly, under the Bill have that object in view. He believed that his hon. Friend, on further consideration, would also feel that as long as they continued the government of Ireland in the way it was at present carried out—as long as they had it managed and conducted by a Lord Lieutenant, established there working the system of government under him— so long it would be utterly impossible to separate one particular branch of that Executive, and to deal with it from the Central Authority in London, instead of dealing with it, as they did with all other parts of Ireland, through their deputed Ruler or Governor representing England. The object which the Government had in view in this clause was expressed in the very first words of the clause. It was "with a view to uniformity of action" that they proposed the clause. They believed that the Lord Lieutenant and his Privy Council in Ireland were as anxious to carry out an Act of Parliament as the Privy Council in England could be, and that they would coalesce with the Privy Council here in the working of the Act and in the spirit in which it was conceived and with the object it had in view. He firmly believed that they could as safely trust the Privy Council in Ireland to assimilate these Orders by its own action with the Orders thought to be necessary for the common interests of the United Kingdom, as they could trust the Privy Council in this country so to legislate for Ireland itself. There would be this further advantage in dealing with the Privy Council in Ireland — that they would leave the matter to a body working with them with the same object in view, and the same interests, and with more accurate local knowledge than that 144 which would be possessed by the Privy Council itself of the ways and habits of the Irish trade. In the Act passed last Session, it was indicated that uniformity of action was the object they had in view; and, as far as it could be specified in an Act of Parliament, their object now was to guide the action of the Privy Council in Ireland, and with a clear direction on the face of the clause, he could not for a moment conceive that the Privy Council in Ireland would do otherwise than assimilate as far as they possibly could, with a knowledge of the circumstances of their particular country, the Orders of Council issued for carrying out the Bill here with the Orders intended to effect the same object in Ireland—namely, the stamping out of these diseases. He believed that no words could express more clearly the intentions of the Act, and as long as the government of Ireland was carried on under the system which at present prevailed in that country, so long they could not avoid the necessity of trusting to another Department of the State equally capable of carrying out the views of Parliament as their own.
§ MR. ARTHUR PEEL
thought there was a great deal to be said for the Amendment which his hon. Friend the Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease) had proposed, and that if there was not actually the same jurisdiction in both countries, there should be uniformity of jurisdiction. The hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury said the object of the clause was to secure uniformity of action. It was quite obvious that if there was not the same action in Ireland, the whole object of the Act would be vitiated, and that if disease was not effectually stamped out in Ireland, there would be much more danger of getting infected animals from Ireland than from cattle coming from Spain or Portugal. He could not exactly explain his meaning without referring to Clause 70, which might land them in a difficulty in regard to securing uniformity of action between the Privy Council in England and the Privy Council in Ireland. He wished to call the attention of the Committee to Sub-sections ii. and iv. of Clause 70. The clause gave power to the Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council to make such Orders in Council as they might deem fit from time to time— 145(ii.) For defining their qualifications and powers, and regulating their duties; and (iv.) for extending and applying to any local authority the provisions of Part II. relative to pleuro-pneumonia, as regards the declaration of infected places, and slaughter and compensation, or the provisions of Part II. relative to foot-and-mouth disease, as regards the declaration of infected places.It appeared, therefore, that the Privy Council in Ireland need not, unless they thought fit, apply Part II. to Ireland. He saw that the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) shook his head. He would, therefore, let that pass, and admit that the Privy Council in Ireland had power to extend the provisions of the Act or not, as they thought fit; but what became of the next section of the clause—Notwithstanding anything in this Act, the provisions of Part II., mentioned in this section, shall not extend or apply to any local authority, unless and until they are so extended and applied by Order in Council under this section.If the Committee would look at the foot-and-mouth disease regulations, on page 9, they would find that these clauses wore extended to the local authorities, and that the bringing into effect the operation of the clauses did not rest altogether with the Privy Council, but the power might also be exercised by the local authority. They might, therefore, find themselves in this position— that while in England it was incumbent on the local authorities to carry out the provisions in regard to foot-and-mouth disease, in Ireland the Privy Council might withhold their authority, and not make it incumbent on the local authorities to carry out the regulations that were absolutely necessary for stamping out foot-and-mouth disease in Ireland. He wished respectfully to call the attention of the Secretary to the Treasury to the position they would be in if they did not have this uniformity of action on the part of the two Privy Councils.
§ MR. KAVANAGH
said, that as the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease) had referred to the evidence which he (Mr. Kavanagh) had given before the Lords' Committee, he wished to say a few words. The hon. Member said that his object was to secure uniformity of action between the two countries; but he (Mr. Kavanagh) hardly knew that the Amendments of the hon. Member were necessary in order to carry out 146 that object. It was already the object of the Government that uniformity of action should be secured. He might add that, as far as his evidence went, before the Committee of the House of Lords, as to the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council in Ireland, he had no wish to insult either the Veterinary Department or the Privy Council, or to cast any imputation upon them. He was, however, bound to say this—that unless the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council in Ireland was very materially strengthened, it could not carry out these regulations. That was what his evidence before the Lords' Committee was intended to point out; but he was unable to say whether he expressed himself clearly on the point or not. He said, further, that he thought it would be advisable if the whole administration of the Act were placed under one jurisdiction—namely, the Privy Council. His intention and object in saying that was to show that he thought perfect uniformity of action between the two countries was absolutely necessary.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he had been rather surprised at the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for the county of Limerick (Mr. Synan). His hon. Friend seemed to consider that the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease) desired to delegate the authority of the Government in Ireland to the Privy Council in England. That was scarcely the fact, and the hon. Member for Limerick, if he would look through the evidence given before the Lords' Committee, would find that the hon. Member for South Durham simply quoted the opinion of the Irish witnesses. Indeed, it was the only thing in which the Irish witnesses appeared to be agreed. The hon. Member for South Durham had quoted the evidence of three or four witnesses, some of them graziers and salesmen, who knew a great deal about the cattle trade. Some were very strongly in favour of restriction, and others were not; but one thing they all agreed upon was that they would rather prefer the English Privy Council to the Irish Privy Council. His hon. Friend the Member for South Durham had quoted the evidence of the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Kavanagh), Mr. Featherstonehaugh, Mr. Cullen, and Mr. Verdon. The Duke of Rich- 147 mond himself called one witness, Mr. Reynell, a farmer from the county of Westmeath, who farmed about 1,800 statute acres, or about 1,200 Irish acres. He was asked—Do you think it would be better if the English Privy Council undertook the duty?He replied—Certainly, I believe it would. I should like to get men who know something about it, no matter where they came from.Stronger than that was the evidence of Mr. Caff, the honorary secretary of the Irish Cattle Trade Association. He was asked—In order to make not only the law, but the administration of the law (which is even more important) identical, I suppose you would agree with many of the witnesses who have come before this Committee, that it would be desirable to place the administration of the law of Ireland as it is in Great Britain, under the Lord President of the Council.His answer was very short, but very conclusive. It was, "I would;" and that was what the representative of the Irish Cattle Trade Association distinctly declared. It was a mistake to suppose that the proposition of the hon. Member was directed against the Irish Government. It was, as he understood, made simply and solely because the Irish witnesses thought it was the best way of stamping out the disease. He did not know that he was himself inclined to go as far as his hon. Friend. He thought there would be a good deal of administrative difficulty in substituting the English Privy Council for the Irish Privy Council; but they did want, and they were all agreed that, if they were to stamp out the disease, they must have quite as much action in Ireland as in England. He did not suppose that there could be any doubt about that. This was not only an Irish question, but it was also an English question; because if they were to get rid of disease in England by strong restrictive measures, and especially by applying measures to foreign cattle, they must take care that they did not get the disease imported from Ireland. He was not blaming or condemning what happened in Ireland in regard to disease; but it was a fact that there was a great deal of disease in Ireland. He held in his hand the last Return from the Veterinary Department in Ireland, and it was quite true that 148 there was very little foot-and-mouth disease recorded; but there could be years picked out in England when there was very little foot-and-mouth disease, and he did not think when they were passing an Act which was not intended for this year, but for all future, that they could say there was no danger from foot-and-mouth disease. The Irish Re-turn for 1875 showed that there were 31,873 outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in that year. Everyone would admit that pleuro-pneumonia was, after all, a more dangerous disease than foot-and-mouth disease; and these Returns showed that in 1877 the number of outbreaks of pleuro-pneumonia in Ireland was 1,251. Now, that really was a very serious matter, and he found in The Manchester Guardian of yesterday that there had been a case of a serious outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia in Lancashire, in which about 18 cattle had to be killed out of something less than 40, in consequence of the disease having been introduced from Ireland a few weeks ago. It was necessary, therefore, that they should insure strong action in Ireland as well as in England. The suggestion he would venture to make to the Government was this. It would involve them, he thought, in some difficulty to accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for South Durham, which would, in effect, establish one Privy Council for the two Kingdoms. He did not think the words "with a view to" were sufficiently strong. They did not really demand anything; but meant simply that, in order to secure uniformity of action, each side should tell the other what it was doing. The words referred to might, he thought, be replaced by the words " in order to secure uniformity of action " the two Orders were to be communicated. He thought it was quite as likely that the English Privy Council might take advice from the Irish Privy Council, as the Irish from the English Privy Council. He did not wish to do anything that would put one above the other. His hon. Friend the Member for Warwick (Mr. Arthur Peel) showed how very important this matter was, because they did find from the drawing up of the Bill that there was the greatest possible difference between the action of England and Ireland. The action of England was this—that the local authorities were to do certain 149 things with regard to pleuro- pneumonia and foot-and-mouth disease. But the last section in the 70th clause distinctly said that the restrictions contained in the clause, with regard to foot-and-mouth disease, were not to apply to any part of Ireland, until the Privy Council in Ireland declared that they should so apply. He did not know whether that clause fully expressed the meaning of the Government; but, if it did, it might so happen that when foot-and-mouth disease made its appearance in any single county or any particular district in Ireland, considerable pressure might be put upon the Irish Government not to enforce the Orders in Council with regard to it, on the ground that whatever might be thought in England of the precautions that should be taken against the spread of that disease, the opinion in Ireland was that the remedy was worse than the disease. If the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease) were willing to accept the words he had suggested in lieu of his own Amendment, he (Mr. W. E. Forster) should propose that he should withdraw his Amendment, in order that the words "in order to secure" should be substituted at the commencement of the clause, for "with the view to secure" uniformity of action.
§ MR. KING-HARMAN
said, that the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. W. E. Forster), in endeavouring to show that a large amount of cattle disease existed in Ireland, had been compelled to go back as far as the year 1875 for his figures. It was true that in that year there had been a sudden outbreak of cattle disease in Ireland. In 1874, there had been very little of that disease in that country; but, in the following year, there had undoubtedly been a singular outbreak of it; but, by the wise measures of precaution and restriction taken by the Irish Privy Council, the extent of the disease had been brought down to its present limit of 150 cases per annum. No one could doubt the desirability of establishing uniformity of action in this matter in the two countries; but that uniformity should be attained by a system of levelling up and not of levelling down. He maintained that the action of the Privy Council in Ireland had, for years past, been far better and more successful than that of the Privy Council in this country. 150 If we had adopted the Irish system, we should not have so constant an outbreak of the foot-and-mouth disease as we had experienced, to the great loss of our cattle breeders. It was owing to the very stringent regulations that had been adopted in Ireland, and to the very careful manner in which they had been enforced, that cattle plague had never made its appearance in that country at all. He agreed with the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan), that the Veterinary Staff in Ireland was exceedingly weak. That, however, was a reason for strengthening it, and not for transferring the powers of the Irish Privy Council to that of England.
§ MR. COGAN
said, that as a Member of the Irish Privy Council, it was not his province to eulogize the action which had been taken by them with regard to cattle disease in that country; but he thought that the defence of their conduct might be founded on the results which had followed from it. The hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. King-Harman) had pointed to the most important fact that owing to the careful precautions which the Irish Privy Council had taken with respect to the importation of cattle, the cattle plague had never reached that country at all. He thought that the Irish Privy Council had not done anything that warranted their conduct in this matter being called in question, and he was satisfied that they were as sincerely desirous of putting down cattle disease of all forms as anybody else could be. He agreed entirely with the views of those who thought that there ought to be complete uniformity of action on both sides of the Channel, especially with regard to the regulations for the importation of cattle. If Ireland, England, and Scotland, were to be treated as a united country, uniformity of restrictions was most desirable; but that was all that ought to be required. Ireland had no right to ask for exceptional privileges in the matter; but, on the other hand, no additional restrictions should be placed upon her. He therefore hoped to receive an assurance from Her Majesty's Government that it was not intended to place an additional restriction upon the movement of cattle in that country, in addition to the local restriction by requiring inspection of Irish cattle at the port of 151 either embarkation or debarkation. So long as the same regulations with regard to isolation and disinfection were adopted in Ireland as were enforced in England and Scotland, it would be most unfair to the former country to require such inspection at ports. The Duke of Richmond and Gordon was reported to have stated that an Irish county was to be treated on exactly the same footing as an English county by this Bill. That, however, would not be the case, if, in addition to the local regulations, inspection at the port of embarkation and debarkation were enforced. When the Royal Agricultural Society of Ireland passed a resolution in favour of the Bill, it was on the most positive understanding that the three, countries were to be treated on a footing of perfect equality in this matter, and that inspection of any kind of Irish cattle at the ports was to cease, and that the local regulations were to be the same for all. He wanted to know why, if the local restrictions were the same in Ireland and in England, an additional restriction was to be enforced with regard to Irish cattle, which were to be conveyed by steamer on a voyage which occupied four hours only, which was not enforced with regard to Scotch cattle sent by railway from Aberdeen to London? "What difference could in justice be made between them? If the local regulations were as carefully framed for the two countries as they ought to be, he could not see why inspection should be enforced with regard to the cattle of one, when it was not required with regard to the cattle of the other. It was only just that the Committee should know of the view which had been taken by the Royal Agricultural Society of Ireland on this subject; and he now wished to ask the Government to state distinctly whether it was their intention that inspection of cattle at the ports was to be continued? The remarks which had fallen from hon. Members in reference to the weakness of the Veterinary Staff in Ireland by no means justified the transference of the powers now exercised by the Privy Council of Ireland to that of London. He granted that that Department required to be strengthened and improved; but it was the business of the Irish Government to strengthen and improve it; and it would be most unfortunate if, under 152 the provisions of this measure, an attempt were made to effect further centralization with regard to Irish institutions. He should view with great concern the adoption of any course in reference to this question which would be dangerous not only to the popularity of this Bill, but also to the good feeling which they were all anxious to see maintained between one country and the other.
§ MR. CLARE READ
said, that he was no particular friend of Privy Council regulations either in this country or in Ireland; but it had been proved before the Committee of 1873 that the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council at Dublin was not only under-manned, but that it was under-paid. He wished to see that Department strengthened and reformed. It was almost unconstitutional to suppose that the Irish Privy Council could not properly manage their own affairs. He should venture to point out that there was an immense difference between the local authorities in Ireland and in England; and also, of course, a large distinction between the local customs of the two countries. That was a fact that should be taken into consideration in carrying out this Act, because, otherwise, the Privy Council Orders for one country might be made to apply directly to both. For his part, representing a county which was more indebted to Ireland than any other for their store cattle, amounting to some 50,000 a-year, which she supplied, he was grateful to Irish Members for the assistance they had given in forwarding the Bill. No doubt it was the wish of the Irish dealer to export, as it was that of the English dealer to import, healthy cattle, because they obtained a better price for them.
§ MR. ANDERSON
said, that he had an Amendment on the Paper to the following effect: —"That the Privy Council should be bound to issue corresponding rules for England and Ireland as far as they should think necessary for securing uniformity of action;" and as its purport was similar to that of the ton. Member for South Durham, he thought that the two Amendments had better be considered together. The Castle Government were to be congratulated upon having secured so warm a supporter as they had done in the person of the hon. Member for Limerick 153 (Mr. Synan), one of the Home Rule Members. His impression had been that the Home Rule Members were not so fond of that memorial and badge of conquest—the Castle Government. As a rule, the hon. Member did not give his hearty support to that Government; but now he was loudest in defence of it. Although he (Mr. Anderson) himself did not greatly admire the Castle Government, still he thought that they should be congratulated upon having obtained the services of so able, enthusiastic, and energetic a defender. The only excuse that the Government and the supporters of the Bill had for putting such stringent restrictions upon the foreign trade was that they had given their promise that equally stringent restrictions should be placed upon the home trade in order that cattle disease might be altogether got rid of. But the moment restrictions were placed upon the Irish cattle trade, and Irish Members began to feel where the shoe pinched, they began to press for an exemption of fairs and markets from the operation of the Bill.
§ MR. ANDERSON
said, that what the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan) had urged was that the exemption should be extended to fairs and markets, and he had not attributed to him language intended to confine the exemption to fairs and markets in Ireland. What he had said was that Irish Members were the first to feel the shoe pinch, and were the first to propose that fairs and markets should be exempted from these restrictions, while Scotch and English Members had not made such a claim. He believed that Irish Members were trusting to the well-known laxity of the Castle Government to have the provisions of this measure worked generally in their own favour. As the Bill was drawn, it was utterly impossible to secure uniformity of action in the two countries, and it was upon that ground that he had placed upon the Paper an Amendment of a similar effect to that of the hon. Member for South Durham. It was necessary for the preservation of English and Scotch stock that uniformity of action between the two countries should be maintained, or else that Ire- 154 land should be treated as a foreign country; and in order that that uniformity of action should be maintained, it was necessary that the action should be controlled be some central authority. There was no separate authority proposed for Scotland, and he was sure that keeping Ireland separate would prove to be a mistake. He hoped that the hon. Member for South Durham would go to a division upon his Amendment, and that greater stringency would be adopted in order to secure uniformity of action between the two countries.
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
said, he rose to appeal to the hon. Member for South Durham to agree to withdraw his Amendment, on the understanding that Her Majesty's Government would accept the substitution of the words proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) in place of those at the commencement of the clause. He was quite willing to accept those words, as being calculated to insure uniformity of regulations throughout the United Kingdom. He was sure that if the Amendment suggested by the right hon. Gentleman was calculated to effect the object they all had at heart, both the Government and the Irish Members would be only too happy to accept it. The necessity of continuing a separate Privy Council in Ireland was the natural consequence of maintaining a separate form of government in Ireland, and that was an answer to the observation of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson). The hon. Member, when he made his remarks, should have borne in mind the fact that Scotland was not ruled by a Lord Lieutenant, as the Representative of Her Majesty. When the present form of government in Ireland was abolished, that would be time to talk of having one Privy Council for the two countries. In the meantime, it was necessary to indicate by this Bill that the Privy Council in Ireland should be at liberty to adopt such regulations as would secure uniformity of action between the two countries.
§ MR. PEASE
said, that in proposing his Amendment he had no other object than to secure uniformity of action between the two countries, which he thought was essential to the prosperity of the Irish cattle trade. Everyone 155 knew of the wonderful increase which had occurred of late years in both the quality and weight of Irish cattle coming into this country, and it was of the greatest importance to England and Scotland that every means should be adopted that would secure the importation of healthy Irish cattle. He was quite ready to accept the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) in place of his own, because he believed that it would fully meet the views of hon. Members who thought with him. He, therefore, asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
said, he thought that it had been clearly established that some sort of discretion should be left to the Lord Lieutenant and the Privy Council of Ireland to act in this matter. He, however, did not think that the Amendment suggested by the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) met the exigencies of the case. Therefore, if the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease) were permitted to withdraw his Amendment, he (Mr. Chamberlain) should move to add at the end of the clause, the following words:—And all such Orders shall be extended to Ireland in all cases where, in the opinion of the Lord Lieutenant and of the Privy Council in Ireland, they can be properly applied to Ireland.By the Amendment, while allowing some discretion to the Lord Lieutenant and to the Privy Council in Ireland, he wished to give an indication in the Bill that it was the opinion of Parliament that uniformity of action between the two countries should be maintained. Hon. Members were, doubtless, aware that in the evidence given on the subject before the Committee of the House of Lords, there was this important distinction—that, whereas all the English witnesses were of opinion that it was necessary to take the greatest precautions to stamp out the foot-and-mouth disease, the Irish witnesses treated the matter as one of comparative indifference, and desired that the subject should not be dealt with in the Bill.
§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
said, that the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan) was in a great hurry to interrupt. He had never charged him with stating anything of the sort. What he had said was that the Irish interests before the Lords' Committee, and the agricultural interest, which was represented by the hon. Member for Limerick, had urged that the foot-and-mouth disease should be let alone as far as legislation was concerned. In England, the regulations with regard to pleuro-pneumonia and to foot-and-mouth disease were to be placed upon an equal footing; and, therefore, Ireland should be treated in the same way. The Committee had been asked not to fall into a trap set for them. Hon. Members opposite would, perhaps, not fall into the evident trap set for them by permitting the stringent regulations with regard to foot-and-mouth disease which were to be enforced in this country to be relaxed in the case of Ireland. In Gloucester they had been obliged to prohibit the importation of Irish cattle, owing to the prevalence of foot-and-mouth disease amongst them. In these circumstances, therefore, if the hon. Member for South Durham withdrew his Amendment, he should press his own.
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT
said, after what had fallen from Irish Members in the course of the debate, he did not think that there was any difference in point of principle between them and the English and Scotch Members. What they all wanted was that England and Ireland should be treated exactly in the same way. What they wanted to secure in this country was that the regulations should be so perfect that cattle disease should be localized, and not allowed to spread throughout the country, and that was all that was wished to be done in the case of Ireland. He hoped that before the Bill was finished, something would be inserted in it which would insure that the Irish Veterinary Staff should be strengthened.
§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY
said, that the clause dealt with one of the most essential features of the Bill. The part of Scotland which he had the honour to represent complained, not so much of the importation of disease through foreign cattle, as of the spread of disease brought into the country by Irish store cattle. He did not mean to contend, for a mo- 157 ment, that there was more disease in Ireland than in England or in Scotland. He did not put much value upon the statistics offered by the Privy Council, because those statistics depended greatly upon the stringency with which the regulations were enforced. What really took place was this. In Ireland—and farmers would, in many cases, do the same thing in England and Scotland— when a farmer found that one or two of his stock were affected with disease, he at once sent the remainder to market, and they, being bought by an enterprizing cattle dealer, were sent on board a steamer with other cattle to England or Scotland, probably carrying infection through the whole of them. It was most important, therefore, that there should be inspection at the Irish port of embarkation. In the North of Scotland the value of Irish store cattle had fallen £1 per head in consequence of the suspicion that attached to them that they were infected. The county which he had. the honour to represent depended more than any other in Scotland on Irish cattle; and therefore it was that they were specially anxious that they should have the Irish cattle trade put into a more healthy condition than it was at present. He knew that Scotch farmers would be willing to pay £1 per head more for Irish cattle than they now did, if they had more confidence in their healthy condition. He was surprised to hear the observation of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Gogan), who was a Member of the Privy Council of Ireland, that inspection at the port of embarkation should cease. He considered it one of the great advantages that the cattle should be inspected before being put on board the steamer. If diseased cattle were to be mixed with healthy cattle on board steamers, the value of the whole cargo would be prejudiced and depreciated. If he were interested in Ireland, he should insist on the same rule being carried out in both countries—the cattle going from England to Ireland should be examined at the port of embarkation, and the cattle going from Ireland to England should be examined in the same manner. With reference to the observations which had been made regarding cattle from the North of Scotland, he wished to point out the difference between the North of Scotland and Ireland. He might say that the whole of the cattle 158 that came from the North of Scotland to England came as fat cattle to be slaughtered; or if not as fat cattle, certainly not as ordinary store cattle, but as special breeding animals, and with regard to them there was a special disinfection of trucks to insure their healthy arrival at the place of destination. He hoped the Government, when they indicated their policy with regard to inspection at the port of embarkation, would be able to make such a satisfactory announcement as would shorten the discussion on Clause 70.
§ MR. BIGGAR
said the Amendment suggested by the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) would have no practical effect, and it seemed to him that the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease), in accepting it, was very easily pleased. However, several questions had been raised as to Irish cattle and foreign cattle, to which it was his duty, as an Irish Member, to reply. All the Irish witnesses before the House of Lords, as far as he could remember, showed that any restrictions with regard to foot-and-mouth disease would do more harm than the disease itself. That was the practical effect of the evidence, and he entirely agreed with it. He was of opinion that foot-and-mouth disease should have been left entirely out of the Bill. Professor Gamgee said there should be no restrictions at all, and Professor Brown said they might stamp out the disease after a considerable time, but that the people would never submit to the restrictions required, and the result would be that the disease would be as bad as ever. Professor Gamgee, again, said that there were three zones of the disease—namely, in the mountains, in the lowlands, and in the town districts. In the mountains there was less disease, in the lowlands there was a middle quantity, and in the towns a greater quantity. The result of his (Mr. Biggar's) experience was entirely in the same direction, and he believed that Ireland was a healthier country than either Scotland or England, for the reason that the conditions of health were much better. For instance, in London, the disease was constantly in existence, and to make the same restrictions in all parts of Ireland that existed in the neighbourhood of London would simply be to throw obstacles in the way, and would do no good, One 159 reason against the Amendment was that they knew, as a matter of fact, that a constant system of intriguing was going on with the Privy Council in London, and undue influence was brought to bear, in order to obtain a relaxation of the regulations. Now in Ireland they wished to avoid that evil. If influence was to be used, they thought it more desirable that the Irish cattle dealers should have the opportunity of using their influence with the Privy Council in Dublin, without being put to the trouble of coming over to a foreign body. That was, in his opinion, a very important matter. Of course, if the Bill was carried in the manner proposed by the hon. Member for South Durham, the very first thing the promoters of the Bill would do would be to urge, in vehement terms, the Privy Council to make the most stringent regulations on the cattle in Ireland—as stringent as against the cattle on the Continent. He would, therefore, oppose that or any similar Amendment. With regard to the question raised by the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay), as to cattle suffering from pleuro-pneumonia and foot-and-mouth disease being imported from Ireland, he did not think the hon. Member had any right to talk about pleuro-pneumonia. Pleuro-pneumonia did not exist at all on the farms in Ireland. There was more of that disease in two cities in Scotland—namely, the cities of Glasgow and Edinburgh— than there was in the whole of Ireland. He had it on the best authority that this lung disease existed extensively in Glasgow, and the same thing applied to all large towns; and if these extreme restrictions were to be applied to the whole of Ireland, the farmers would have a right to complain.
§ MR. J. HOLMS
said, he understood the statement of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) to be that pleuro-pneumonia existed to a small extent in Ireland; and that, therefore, there ought to be no restrictions in that country with regard to that disease. In his opinion, that was not the case, because the statistics showed that pleuro-pneumonia existed to a great extent there. In 1874, there were 829 cases; in 1875, 440; in 1876, 424; and in 1877, 2,379, out of which 1,984 had to be slaughtered.
§ MR. RODWELL
said, they were now dealing with one of the most important 160 parts of the Bill. The experience which he had had, living in a part of England where they had a great number of Irish cattle brought, and speaking from personal observation, he was convinced that the Bill would be a nullity, and legislation a farce, unless they put Irish cattle on the same terms as English cattle. He could quite understand how it was that the evidence, which he had thought it his duty to read, was given by one of the spokesmen of Ireland with reference to foot-and-mouth disease—in Ireland they did not look upon that disease as so great a matter as they did in England. Their business was chiefly to export store beasts, and the effect of the disease on store animals was not nearly the same as on fat and dairy animals, and that would account for the view they took of the foot-and-mouth disease. But knowing the numbers of animals coming to this country from Ireland, and the amount of disease imported into England from Ireland, he trusted that the Government would introduce some fair and reasonable Amendment which would have the effect of putting Ireland on the same terms as England. Unless that was done, he thought that all attempts to stamp out this disease and get rid of it in Great Britain would be futile.
THE O'CONOR DON
said, he would venture to point out that the proposal before the Committee was that the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease) be withdrawn. He did not think that any hon. Member objected to that withdrawal. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) proposed to make another Amendment later on; and he ventured to submit that they should agree to the withdrawal of the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Durham, and then discuss the proposal of the hon. Member for Birmingham.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
moved to omit the words "with a view to" at the beginning of the clause, in order to insert the words "in order to secure."
§ Amendment agreed to; words substituted,161
§ MR. ANDERSON
said, he did not wish to press the Amendment which he had on the Paper, as he believed his object would be much better met by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain).
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
moved to add, at the end of the clause, the following words:—And all such Orders shall be extended to Ireland in all cases where, in the opinion of the Lord Lieutenant and the Privy Council, they can be properly applied to Ireland.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he could not help thinking that the Amendment would precisely defeat the object the hon. Member had in view. It would suggest to the Lord Lieutenant and the Privy Council that there were cases in which Ireland might be exceptionally treated, and the result would be much less uniformity of action.
THE O'CONOR DON
said, he quite concurred in the view taken by the right hon. Member for Bradford. The words were not at all desirable, and, if adopted, it would be necessary that there should be reciprocity; to carry out which he would propose that all Orders adopted by the Privy Council in Ireland should be extended to England.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, that what they really wanted was that as far as practicable there should be uniformity and reciprocity between the respective Privy Councils as respected the diseases scheduled under that Act. They had extended the definition of the term disease, so that it included any disease; and by the Amendment which the hon. Baronet proposed to introduce in the Schedule, they were going to enact that there should be slaughter except in certain cases where there was no reason to suppose that in the countries from which the cattle came disease was widely prevalent. It was not only necessary that the foreign countries should have laws designed to prevent disease; but it was also necessary, as a matter of fact, that disease should not be widely prevalent. Now, Ireland was in a different position from England, had a different Government and a different Privy Council; and, therefore, there existed altogether different rules. In Ireland disease was widely preva- 162 lent, especially pleuro-pneumonia, as had been shown by the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. J. Holms); and there was great difference of opinion as to foot-and-mouth disease, in regard to which many thought that no special measures ought to be taken. They were not to admit cattle from foreign countries, even where there were good laws, if much disease prevailed, yet from Ireland cattle were allowed to come in. What he wished to secure was that Ireland, for the purposes of that Act, should be so far as was consistent with the differences of local administration, under the same Government for the purpose of preventing disease; and he thought that instead of adopting the Government Amendment with regard to foreign diseases, it would be desirable to place Ireland under the same government as England.
§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA
said, he hoped the Committee would accept the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain's) Amendment, which must commend itself to the common sense and fair play of all men. They could not get rid of the Privy Council in Ireland, they could not make a nullity of the Lord Lieutenant, and what the hon. Member for Birmingham suggested was, that this Bill should contain an instruction to the Government of Ireland, that unless they could take upon themselves the responsibility of making exceptions in certain circumstances, the same rule should be applied as in England.
§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, that this proposal was a modified form of Home Rule, and he was surprised that it should emanate from the hon. Member for Birmingham. It proceeded on the assumption that no communication took place between the Privy Council of England and the Privy Council of Ireland. Now, the object of the Bill, so far as he could understand, was to protect both countries against disease; but inasmuch as there was a large importation of Irish cattle to England—and no one would regret the diminution of that importation more than he should so long as it was healthy—the English, having suffered severely from the importation of disease from Ireland, sought some protection for their healthy cattle. He could not admit, for one moment, that there was such an absence of communication between the Privy Council of 163 England and the Privy Council of Ireland as the hon. Member appeared to suppose.
§ MR. PEASE
said, he hoped the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) would withdraw his Amendment. Whilst, at first sight, it was very much in accordance with the Amendment he had himself proposed, he concurred in the view taken by the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), that it would weaken the clause; because it pointed out at once that there was to be a distinction and a difference between the administration of the two countries. They had already inserted the words "in order to secure uniformity of action," and that, he apprehended, would be sufficient to attain the object in view.
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
said, he agreed with his right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. W. E. Forster), and with the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease). He really believed that the words proposed to be introduced by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) would practically weaken the clause as now amended. What did those words imply? Not that the Lord Lieutenant should have a presumption in favour of adopting all the English Orders in Council; but that he should select such as, after consideration, he might consider applicable to the particular facts of Ireland. It started by suggesting that all the Orders were not applicable. He would rather leave it to the discretion of the Lord Lieutenant and the Privy Council of Ireland, under the evident instruction contained in the first words of the clause, to carry out in Ireland generally the Orders issued in England than suggest that only some of those Orders should be followed. If he were anxious to limit the clause, he should vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Birmingham; but being anxious that uniformity should prevail, he should urge the Committee to stand by the clause as it now stood.
§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
said, that all the Members of the Committee, or nearly all, were so evidently animated by the same desire that he should not be justified in pressing his Amendment against the opinion of the majority. Before withdrawing it, however, he should make an appeal to the hon. Member for 164 South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) as to whether he was quite certain that the object which they all had in view would not be better secured by the Amendment. He did not, he confessed, see much in the objection of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster). Throughout this Bill, while much had been left to the discretion of the English Privy Council, they had been guided as to the mind of the House. And that was all he asked for with regard to the Irish Privy Council. He assumed that the Irish Privy Council would honestly endeavour to carry out what they saw to be the wish of Parliament; but, especially with regard to the important statement made by the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), he thought it would be desirable to give the Irish Privy Council such an indication as could not be mistaken, because the hon. Member had said that there had been in the past, and would be in the future, active and strenuous exertions made to influence the minds of the Privy Council. [Mr. SYNAN: No, no!] The hon. Member for Limerick was interrupting him again, and appeared to know not only what he had himself said, but also what everybody else had said. The hon. Member for Cavan stated that strenuous exertions would be made by Irishmen upon their local Privy Council to relax the regulations in Ireland with regard to the foot-and-mouth disease. He should have thought it to be to the interest of English farmers to secure some each direction to the Irish Privy Council as he now proposed; but if it was the opinion of the hon. Member for South Norfolk that the clause would be better without the addition, he would leave it alone.
§ MR. CLARE READ
said, he was quite satisfied with the clause as amended by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford.
said, he hoped the Amendment would not be withdrawn. It certainly commended itself to him. It proposed to leave the Privy Council in Ireland a just discretion.
§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA
said, he hoped the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) would not withdraw his Amendment. The reasons assigned for its withdrawal were, to his mind, the very grounds and reasons for its 165 retention. The Privy Council in England had a certain power of making rules and regulations, and they represented the elastic power of this Act. They could make rules or dispense with them. But the rules they made were applicable to Great Britain, and it might be that, in the opinion of the Privy Council in Ireland, some of them might not be applicable to the circumstances of Ireland. Why should there not be a power with the Privy Council in Ireland to meet such a case? He hoped the Amendment would not be withdrawn, but would be accepted in a spirit of fair play; and, if accepted in that spirit, he was quite satisfied that the Government of the noble Duke the Lord Lieutenant and the Privy Council in Ireland would not make any unfair relaxation whatever, but that they would be governed by the spirit of the Act, and would only make such modifications of the English practice as were absolutely necessary. He hoped his hon. Friend would uphold his Amendment.
§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
said, that after the opinion expressed by the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) he desired to withdraw his Amendment.
§ MR. BIGGAR
said, he thought he was called on to reply very shortly to some of the observations which had been made. He must have expressed himself very incorrectly, if the hon. Member for Birmingham's representation of what he had said was the correct one. The hon. Member had mis-stated entirely, not what he did say, perhaps, but certainly what he intended to say. What he intended to say was that the Privy Council would be urged in a vehement manner to impose unreasonable restrictions on Ireland. If it were attempted to impose unreasonable restrictions in respect of Irish cattle, it would be desirable that the people should have an opportunity of being heard before the authorities in Dublin, with a view of convincing them of their unreasonableness.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.