Inspectors. (Hansard, 24 July 1878)

§ MR. SYNAN
moved to omit Subsection (1) from the clause. It would not be necessary for him to say much on this Amendment, as what he had to say had been in a great measure anticipated in the discussions which had arisen on this Bill. Its object was to give the same power to Ireland as was possessed in England, under the 40th clause, of compelling the local authorities to appoint professional Inspectors, and the question was as to the amount of remuneration proposed. Sub-section (1) proposed to give the local authorities in Ireland power to appoint as Inspectors persons who were not veterinary surgeons—that was, who were not profes- 176 sional persons. Under this power, the laxity of the present system would be continued. Those who were practically conversant with the subject would confirm him in the assertion that there had been several cases in which Inspectors who had had no professional training had ordered animals to be slaughtered on the supposition that they were suffering from pleuro-pneumonia; whereas, upon a subsequent inspection by a qualified man, it had turned out that there had been no pleuro-pneumonia at all. The effect of the present system, therefore, was to lead to laxity with reference to the extension of the disease, and sometimes to impose upon the local rates a burden for compensation, from which they ought to be free. What he desired was that the Privy Council should have power to appoint professional Inspectors, to fix their remuneration, and the proportion of it that should be supplied by the Treasury and the Cattle Diseases Fund for Ireland respectively. If the Committee objected to pay the money out of the Consolidated Fund, there was money in Ireland which would be applicable for the purpose. The question, then, was, should they give power to the Privy Council to appoint a professional Inspector under the circumstances he had mentioned? In his own county—Limerick—there were six Unions, and at present there was an Inspector appointed for each Union. By an amalgamation of these Unions, one or two professional Inspectors would be better than the present six, and would be a greater security for the public, the owners of cattle, and the local rates. If professional Inspectors were appointed under the amalgamated part of the Act, the abuses to which he had referred, of slaughtering animals which were not affected by pleuro-pneumonia, would be prevented. The question was whether this was practicable. He thought it was. In Munster there were three counties which had quite sufficient local professional gentlemen to be appointed, while in the province of Connaught there were but two. Still, others might be appointed by the Privy Council, if they would give them sufficient remuneration, half of which should be paid out of the public funds, it being a public question, and half out of the Irish Cattle Diseases Fund. The Government could 177 send down an Inspector, if they thought it was necessary. But to send down an Inspector from Dublin to see any particular case—paying his expenses down and hack, and remunerating him for his loss of time—would be almost or entirely as expensive as if a local man were appointed and fixed in the locality; because a local man so appointed would get all the veterinary business of the locality from people who had horses and cattle, provided he knew how to treat the diseases to which they were liable. He apprehended that there was no such scarcity of professional gentlemen as to preclude the Privy Council in Dublin from obtaining a sufficient number of them. If they were paid sufficiently, he believed they would have no difficulty in getting competent men. He, therefore, proposed to omit the following subsection: — (i.) The provisions of Part II., requiring local authorities to keep appointed veterinary inspectors shall not extend to Ireland; and the powers and duties by Part II. conferred and imposed on a veterinary Inspector shall in Ireland be vested in and discharged by an Inspector; but where a person appointed to be an Inspector in Ireland has the qualification of a veterinary Inspector under this Act he may be styled a veterinary Inspector.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, that, as he had had long experience of the veterinary profession, perhaps Her Majesty's Government would excuse him for saying that, if they intended that the rules which applied to England should apply to Ireland, it would be necessary that they should increase the efficiency of the staff of veterinary surgeons in Ireland. He knew from experience that the detection of disease did require a knowledge of pathology, which it was utterly unreasonable to expect in an uneducated man, or a man of no professional training. He was glad to see that Her Majesty's Government had, in many cases, grouped the districts, with the view to the appointment of one educated veterinary surgeon, under whom there would be subordinates. It would be unreasonable to expect the Government to go to the expense of providing such salaries as would insure the same proportion of veterinary surgeons in Ireland as in England. Veterinary surgeons expected to supplement their salaries by ordinary practice; and he was afraid that in Ireland their practice would not 178 be sufficiently profitable to induce men, who underwent a course of at least three years' training, and spent a great deal of money in their education, to go there with the view of practising their profession. At the same time, willing as he always was to spare the public purse, he thought it would not be fair to the stockholders of Ireland that there should be a large number of unprofessional Inspectors. The lives of their stock, in many cases, depended upon the judgment of these Inspectors; and he hoped the Government would provide, either by grouping the districts, or by some other arrangement, to give a sufficient number of educated Inspectors, with a subordinate staff, to meet the requirements of the case. The evidence given before the Committee of the House of Commons and of the House of Lords was strongly to the effect that in Ireland the number of educated veterinary surgeons holding a diploma was really lamentable, and it would be still more so, considering the requirements which were about to be enacted.

§ MR. BUTT
thought the question was a very simple one, and if the hon. Member for County Limerick (Mr. Synan) and the hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. Newdegate) had carefully considered it, they would have come to the same conclusion. This question was fully discussed two years ago, when a, Bill similar to the present was passed through the House of Lords. In England, by the 14th section, every local authority was bound to appoint a veterinary surgeon as an Inspector. If it were not for this sub-section, every local authority in Ireland would be obliged to do the same; but that was impossible. They could not get veterinary surgeons in Ireland for every local authority, and therefore it was essentially necessary to modify the provision. By so doing they did not take away the power of the local authorities to appoint a veterinary surgeon. The farmers and magistrates represented in the Poor Law Board might appoint veterinary surgeons if they liked. The Privy Council had the power of amalgamating and consolidating Unions, and of obliging them as in England to appoint a veterinary surgeon. Was not that provision sufficient? He thought, at all events, it was rational, and that if they meant to pass the Bill, the less discussion they had on such un- 179 necessary questions the better their object would be served.

§ MR. KING-HARMAN
strongly urged the Government and the Privy Council to bear in mind that of the few veterinary surgeons to be found in Ireland, nearly all of them devoted their time to the diseases of horses. There were not in Ireland, practically, any real cattle doctors, and it was his belief that if properly-qualified veterinary Inspectors were appointed, they would get a very large amount of practice from farmers who had cattle, and that this practice would go a long way towards remunerating them. He had within the last 12 months been thinking of taking over to Ireland a veterinary surgeon on his own account, for his own immediate neighbourhood, guaranteeing him a small stipend, as he felt sure that in time the farmers would be gainers by it.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
thought that, on the whole, the Committee had better pass the clause as it stood in the Bill, and he would tell them why. Their object was to get properly-qualified veterinary Inspectors where it was possible; but this clause was drawn on the assumption that, at the present moment, there was in some districts a scarcity of persons who were so qualified, and therefore Clauses 70 and 71 provided only for the appointment of properly-qualified persons wherever it was possible to get them. The Lord Lieutenant had power, under Clause 71, of grouping together a number of unions and of enforcing the appointment of a properly-qualified veterinary Inspector; and by an Amendment which he (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) intended to make, he proposed to give the Lord Lieutenant power in such a case to remunerate such Inspectors out of the public funds instead of out of private funds. Clause 70, which had been already passed, gave power to the Lord Lieutenant to enforce the appointment of a properly-qualified veterinary Inspector where it was possible, and where the local authority neglected to do it. Under these circumstances, he thought the Government had gone as far as they could with regard to the appointment of these Inspectors. He believed the Lord Lieutenant and the Privy Council of Ireland would encourage the appointment of duly-qualified men as far as possible, and prevent the local 180 authorities from neglecting their duty in this matter where they had the means of carrying it out.

§ MR. WHITWELL
urged that the Veterinary Staff should be increased and paid out of the mixed fund such a sum as might be reasonably satisfactory. He might call attention to the fact that on the Votes the other day, the whole expense of the Veterinary Department in Ireland was only £1,900, and the whole strength of the Veterinary Inspection was concentrated in one Veterinary Inspector at £300 a-year, and an Assistant Inspector at £120 a-year, or about 8s. 6d. per day. He believed that if they were to have the cattle which came from Ireland brought in a perfectly healthy state into this country, they must be prepared to vote a sum of money for their proper inspection by well-qualified persons. He was not going into the question of the amount of disease that existed in Ireland. Whatever it might have been, it might on some future occasion be considerably increased; and therefore it was necessary that before the cattle were sent over to this country they should be properly inspected. From Belfast, last year, there were 87,900 cattle, and 2,900 calves exported, and the only inspection that took place was performed by a single individual. He said, therefore, on behalf of the interests of the two countries, that we must be prepared to encounter more expense for inspection if Irish cattle were to be imported to this country in a healthy state.

§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA
hoped the hon. Member for Limerick County (Mr. Synan) would withdraw his Amendment.

§ MR. KAVANAGH
said, that if there was not proper inspection by qualified veterinary surgeons in Ireland, the whole system would break down. He believed that the Veterinary Department, as at present constituted in Ireland, would be utterly unable to carry out the provisions of the Bill, and that it must be strengthened, as a mere act of justice to the Irish farmers.

§ MR. BUTT
thought they were confusing two things which were entirely distinct. There was no person who was more in favour of strengthening the Veterinary Department than he was. He thought the gentleman who presided over that Department was underpaid; 181 but that had nothing to do with the Amendment before the Committee. The subject before them was that of the local Inspectors appointed by the local authorities. He was exceedingly anxious that there should be in every port of embarkation a most efficient inspection by competent officers of all cattle coming to England, so that the Privy Council in England might dispense entirely with the re-inspection by the local authorities of the cattle on their arrival in this country. His right hon. Friend the Member for Kildare (Mr. Cogan) was not accurate in stating what occurred when the deputation waited on the Duke of Richmond and Gordon. He (Mr. Butt) was spokesman on that occasion, and they pressed on the noble Duke exactly what he was now pressing on the Government—the importance of having a very efficient inspection at every Irish port of embarkation. He, for one, would not consider it an insult to Ireland if the officers who were to conduct that inspection for the protection of England were appointed by the Privy Council of England, and perhaps the Irish people could then get rid of the difficulties that were caused by local authorities exercising their power, in some instances, in a manner that could not be approved. As to the question involved in the Amendment before the Committee, he believed the Government had gone as far as they could in providing veterinary surgeons as local Inspectors.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
thought the Motion an important one, but agreed with the Secretary to the Treasury that the question had better stand as it was loft in the Bill. Ho was exceedingly glad to hear the remarks of his hon. and learned Friend who had just sat down (Mr. Butt). If disease was really to be stopped, there must be inspection at the port of embarkation in Ireland, and probably also at the port of debarkation here. That statement was not, to his mind, prejudicial to uniformity of action. Uniformity of action was this—that whether in England, Ireland, or in Scotland, wherever animals were found collected together with the probability of spreading disease, there ought to be special inspection. If there was an export trade from England to Ireland, he would take exactly the same view; but they could not get over the fact that England was an importing country and 182 Ireland an exporting country. When it was stated that the cattle plague never got to Ireland, it should be remembered that few animals, or none, were ever sent to Ireland. It was most important, not for England only but quite as much for Ireland, that there should be an attempt to find out disease at the ports when it existed; and the Privy Councils in England and Ireland ought to exercise the utmost care on this subject.

§ MR. KING - HARMAN
begged the Committee not to be drawn into a discussion upon a question which was not properly before them, but to come to a decision on the Amendment.

§ MR. COGAN
said, the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) was under some misconception as to the deputation to the Duke of Richmond and Gordon. The hon. and learned Member had evidently referred to a deputation that waited upon the noble Duke two years ago; whereas he (Mr. Cogan) alluded to a deputation during this present Session, when he believed the Duke of Richmond and Gordon to have stated that the object of the Bill was to treat any Irish county under the Bill in precisely the same way as an English county would be treated, and that if there were restrictions in Ireland, there would be similar restrictions in other parts of the Kingdom. There would be no uniformity if there were restrictions in one part of the Kingdom, which were not in another; and it was on the promise of the Duke of Richmond and Gordon that there would be uniformity and nothing beyond it, that the Royal Irish Agricultural Society expressed their approbation of the measure. He doubted very much if that approbation would otherwise have been given.

§ MR. MURPHY
said, this incidental question that had been raised was really a very important one. To his knowledge, the port which he had the honour to represent—Cork—had a most efficient system of inspection, and he was so impressed with the consideration of the extraordinary benefits which must result to the Irish cattle trade from such scientific inspection that he must advocate it, if on no other than selfish grounds. He also thought the utmost care should be taken that the vessels in which the animals were shipped should be properly 183 disinfected and ventilated, and that the space for each animal was properly measured off. Were arrangements of this kind uniformly carried out in every port in Ireland, there would be no possibility of the importation of disease into England. In 1876, when the Pleuro-Pneumonia Act for Ireland was passed, by which cattle were treated in Ireland in precisely the same manner as in England, he moved for a Return to show what number of cattle had been detained at the various ports of Ireland prior to their embarkation for England. These cattle were detained under Orders of which the Committee appeared, in discussing this question, to be perfectly ignorant. In 1873, Orders were passed requiring the examination of cattle by the veterinary surgeon. They did not come into operation until 1874–5, and in 1874 there were only 3 head of cattle stopped for pleuro-pneumonia, 2 head for foot-and-mouth disease, and 34 sheep. In 1875, 4 were stopped for pleuro-pneumonia, 74 for foot-and-mouth disease, and 147 swine were stopped. He mentioned this to show the supervision that then existed, and he might also mention what were then the regulations of the Board of Trade. No vessel was allowed to leave any port with cattle on board, unless with a certificate that the recommendations of the Privy Council had been absolutely complied with, that the ventilation was in every respect satisfactory, and that the vessel at the time of inspection had been completely cleansed and disinfected. He mentioned this because there was an evident misconception on the part of the Committee as to the precautions already taken in Ireland.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
urged the Committee to come to some decision on the clause before it. The Committee had been discussing for some time an issue which, however interesting, did not affect the question now to be decided, which was whether it was possible to insist that in every instance the local authority should appoint a veterinary Inspector. He thought the Committee would come to the opinion that wherever it was possible this would be done under the clauses which he had explained to the Committee, and that it was better to allow the clause they were now considering to remain as it stood for a time.

§ MR. SYNAN
said, his object had been served by the attention he had called to the necessity of strengthening the Veterinary Department in Ireland. If the Government said this proposal was impracticable, let it be so; but he thought it was only the question of the expenditure of more money.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
moved to insert, in page 38, line 34, after "thereto," the following words:— Or the Lord Lieutenant may, if he thinks fit, appoint a veterinary Inspector for the united district, on such terms and conditions with reference to contribution by the several unions towards the travelling expenses and allowances of the Inspector as the Lord Lieutenant thinks fit.

§ MR. SYNAN
moved to add to the clause as amended— And how much of same (not exceeding one-half of such remuneration) should be paid out of the moneys provided by Parliament for the purposes of this Act or out of the general cattle diseases fund hereinafter mentioned. If it was desired to strengthen the Department, it would be impossible to succeed by payments out of local rates merely.

THE CHAIRMAN
pointed out that the words would not fit in with the clause properly as it stood; and that, in consequence of the Government Amendment, it would have to be altered.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
explained, that the salaries of the Inspectors appointed by the Lord Lieutenant to districts grouped together would be paid out of the public funds.

§ MR. ARTHUR PEEL
asked, whether it was intended that the Irish Privy Council should make a yearly Report like that of the English Privy Council, which was to be laid before Parliament?

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
said, it was intended, by the provisions of the 52nd clause, that a Report from Ireland should be presented to Parliament.

§ MR. ANDERSON
proposed, in page 2, line 33, to leave out the words "and all other ruminating animals." He said, he would like to know what "ruminating animals" were. He did not believe it was generally understood, and he was not able to instruct the hon. Gentleman if he had not got information. He doubted whether any other Member of the Committee could define the word "ruminating," and that only showed the absurdity of putting it in the Bill. He understood camels and goats and all sorts of deer might be included in "ruminating animals." There was some doubt about hares, and some authorities would even include squirrels. There being so much uncertainty, the simplest plan would be to leave the words out of the clause.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
could not consent to leave the words out. They might be slightly difficult to define, and there might be even some disputes as to certain animals which certain authorities considered ruminating, and which other authorities considered not to be ruminating; but the words would assist the Privy Council in dealing with a particular clause, under which they proposed to take powers with regard to animals introduced for scientific purposes to the Zoological Gardens. It might be quite possible—he did not say probable—that it would be necessary to deal with animals so imported, if there was evidence that they were likely to spread disease. The words were stated by the Privy Council to be necessary for the working of the Bill; therefore, he would ask the Committee to adhere to them.

§ MR. ANDERSON
said, making the meaning of the definition clear would surely improve the Bill; but if the hon. Gentleman did not wish to have the clause more definite, he (Mr. Anderson) would not press the Amendment upon him.

§ MR. BIGGAR
begged leave to move, in page 2, lines 37 and 38, the omission of the words "foot-and-mouth" in the definition of disease. Having read with considerable care the evidence given before the Committees of both Houses 186 of Parliament, he had come to the decided conclusion that far more harm was likely to be done by the system of meddling and interfering with this disease than was likely to be done by the disease itself.

THE CHAIRMAN
said, that in proposing to exclude foot-and-mouth disease from the Bill, the hon. Member was raising a question which had already been decided when Clause 22 was passed. It was out of Order to raise it again.

§ MR. BIGGAR
proposed to give his reasons for a course which he had had no opportunity of taking before.

THE CHAIRMAN
repeated that it would be out of Order to raise the question then.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, in that case, he would take an opportunity of raising the question on a further stage of the Bill. To postpone a clause, and then refuse to allow the different parts of the clause to be discussed, did not appear to him to be a practical way to settle a question.

THE CHAIRMAN
ruled that the point was beyond further controversy. The same objection would not apply to the hon. Gentleman's next Amendment, which raised the question whether "sheep scab" would remain part of the clause; because, on that matter, the Committee had not previously expressed an opinion.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, he would not push the point any further. As to sheep scab, he could not express a very decided opinion, because the district with which he was connected was not a sheep-farming district. But the disease seemed to be looked upon as trivial in character.

THE CHAIRMAN
pointed out that the hon. Gentleman had not withdrawn his previous Amendment.

§ MR. BIGGAR
proposed, in page 2, line 38, to omit the words "sheep scab." He wished to point out that the witnesses before the Committee had not attached much weight to that disease. Few questions were asked, and it appeared to be considered that there was little danger of farmers being so injudicious as to bring their sheep to market with this disease, because they would have to sell them at a reduced price, 187 and it would pay them far better to keep them at home till they were cured.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
thought these words were unnecessary, after the words that were inserted in Clause 30, giving power to the Privy Council to extend the definition of disease. As the main sections of the Act were not intended to apply to these small diseases, he thought it would be better to leave the words out.

§ MR. PELL
hoped the Government would keep the words in the clause. This was an extremely tiresome and troublesome disease to deal with, and unless the Privy Council had power to make Rules and Orders in reference to its treatment, the community might be put to a great deal of trouble. This had been found to be the case in the Midland Counties. The disease was not by any means difficult to cure, but it was one which must be taken in hand in the proper way. This could only be done by giving the Privy Council power to make Orders.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
asked the Committee to retain these words in the Bill. The definition of disease contained in this clause enabled the Privy Council to do by Order that which they had done hitherto by Order. If the words were left out, the Privy Council would practically be prevented from making Orders dealing with this disease, if it became necessary to deal with it.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
asked, what was the object of the sub-section in Clause 31, giving the Privy Council power to extend the definition of the disease?

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
said, as he understood it, the sub-section in question was necessary to meet any new and unknown disease which might arise.

§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
moved, in page 2, line 40, after Sub-section 5, to insert the words— (6.) 'Contact' includes the being or having been in the same shed, stable, herd, flock, or ship. Unless the Amendment were accepted, it appeared to him that it might be almost impossible to prove contact, if that word were interpreted according to its etymological meaning.

MR. GORST
did not thing the definition at all necessary, because the Bill already gave the power to slaughter cattle that had been in the same shed, stable, herd, flock, or ship.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
could not accept the Amendment, for the reason stated by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst).

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
asked the Government, how it was intended to alter the clause to make it read better?

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
said, he would propose an Amendment, making the clause read that a veterinary Inspector meant a member of the Royal Veterinary College.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
asked, whether the insertion of the Amendment would qualify persons to act as Inspectors other than members of the College—that was, persons who had undergone examination, and obtained diplomas?

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
said, he did not understand it so. To be styled a veterinary Inspector, a person must be a member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.

§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY
moved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 15, after "surgeons," to insert the words "or who holds the veterinary certificate of the Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland." He hoped the Committee would accept the Amendment. The holder of a diploma of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons might be also a veterinary Inspector in Scotland; but the same reciprocity was not shown to veterinary surgeons who held the diplomas of the Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland. That Society held a charter for granting diplomas, and he believed that students who held those diplomas took equal rank with those who held the diplomas of the Royal College. What had already been said as to the scarcity of veterinary Inspectors in Ireland constituted an argument for widening the scope of the definition in the way proposed by his Amendment.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
could not accept the Amendment. The Veterinary College of London was a corporate body, with a recognized charter, and no injustice could arise to Scotland by reason of the clause standing as it at present stood in the Bill, because a clause in the Bill enabled veterinary surgeons to practice for veterinary purposes in Scotland on a diploma obtained from the Scotch Society; and, in order to practice in England, they would only need to obtain a certificate from the English. College by the payment of a small fee. He asked the Committee to consider the wideness of the question that would be opened if the Amendment were accepted. It would have to be considered whether the Royal College ought to be entitled to sell diplomas for veterinary Inspectors. The object of the clause was to maintain the high status of the veterinary Inspectors, and it would be better that it should remain as it stood, so long as no practical hardship to Scotch surgeons was involved.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
pointed out that the Highland Society had retained the power to grant diplomas, whereas the English. College had abandoned their right to grant certificates.

§ DR. LUSH
was glad the Government resisted the Amendment, but thought a better definition might be inserted in the clause.

§ MR. MARK STEWART
remarked, that this was a question of great interest to Scotland, where the veterinary surgeons were considered equal, if not superior, to those of the Southern country, and where the opinion prevailed that the certificate granted by the Highland Society was quite equal, if not superior, to the diploma granted by the Veterinary College. He wished to know what fee would be necessary to become a member of the English College?

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
thought the fee varied from £1 to £7.

§ LORD ELCHO
asked, if the fee was accompanied by any requirement to pass an examination? What was desirable was that whatever country these 190 surgeons might come from they should be free to practice if properly qualified.

§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING
said, it appeared to him that the reading of the clause went to show that the practice was to be limited to one College. Now, there was a College in Dublin and a College in Edinburgh; and, surely, it was not intended to exclude those who were qualified because they had obtained their diplomas in Dublin or in Edinburgh. It would be necessary, he thought, to amend the clause by inserting the word. "any." It would then read— "Being a member of any Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons." He hoped the hon. Baronet would see the necessity of his proposition.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, there was but one body who could grant diplomas in the United Kingdom, and that one body held examinations in London, in Edinburgh, and in Dublin. The question before the Committee was, whether those who had obtained a diploma in England should be placed on an equality with those who had not. That was the plain question. The Highland Society preferred to grant what were called "certificates," which were not diplomas. In England there was a power to grant certificates; but in order that the educational status might be raised, that power was abandoned, and the students were compelled to apply for diplomas. The difference was that the certificate did not insure to the public those qualifications which the diploma did.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
considered the remarks of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) really answered the question raised by the hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. J. W. Barclay). There was but one Society, and it held its examinations in England, Edinburgh, and Dublin. The diplomas granted by the Society to students in Edinburgh and Dublin had the same force as the diplomas granted in England. The Society was established to insure efficiency. If students who merely held certificates were to be let in it would be opening the door very wide indeed.

§ MR. MACDONALD
conceived that to restrict the practice to one Society alone was trades unionism as much as any that had been carried on by the working classes. It struck him that the impost, or the fixing of fees, to be levied upon 191 those who had certificates in Scotland was really objectionable. If persons were equal in skill, why should such a charge be laid down? It would be most unjust, and, as he had said, it savoured strongly of trades unionism amongst those who had succeeded in obtaining their diplomas. Were any class of the working men of this country to put forth such a Bill, they would have all the Becketts, all the Barons, and others, denouncing such a restriction. He hoped the Amendment would be pressed to a division.

§ LORD ELCHO
said, they had heard from the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), and the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury, that there was but one body that granted diplomas to the United Kingdom of England, Ireland, and Scotland. They had also heard that what were called "certificates" were granted by the Highland Society of Scotland. He begged to say that that Society was established prior to the English Society —in fact, it was reckoned the parent of Societies of the kind. That Society granted certificates which entitled the holder to practise in Scotland. Was that to be permitted with or without a fee in addition to that paid to the body in Scotland? [Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: Without a fee.] Then the certificates of the Highland Society were a sufficient qualification for practice in Scotland, and the holders were not required to pay any fee in addition to a branch of the general licensing body.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBESTON
said, that if the Royal Society of England were to grant certificates, they would have the same force as those granted by the Highland Society.

§ LORD ELCHO
said, that the holders of certificates granted by the Highland Society could not practice in England without payment of a fee. He wished to know why they could not? It seemed to him, as the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) had observed, a question of trades unionism, and nothing else. A Scotch licence that held good on one side of the Border did not seem to hold good on the other. It was a system adopted for putting money into the coffers of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.

§ MR. MARK STEWART
said, there was a great number of veterinary sur- 192 geons in Scotland, of good education, experience, and ability; but who had no means, either of coming to England to practice, or of paying a fee if they did come. It was hard and unjust that these men, who had received their certificates long before this Bill was heard of, should be placed in a disadvantageous position to new practitioners, merely because, by being Scotsmen, they held their certificates from the Highland Society of Scotland.

MR. SULLIVAN
considered that the whole matter lay in a nutshell. It was either a matter of fee, or of knowledge. If it was a matter of knowledge, and students were not qualified, they had no right to practise anywhere.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
asked to be allowed to explain again. There was but one diploma issued for the United Kingdom. Certificates of the Highland Society did not give the same security as diplomas for the efficiency of the man; otherwise they would only apply for certificates. The Royal Veterinary College, and not the Royal Agricultural Society, had the power of granting certificates like the Highland Society; but, for the sake of giving an additional security to the public, they did not exercise their power. The examinations for the certificates were not conducted in the manner that the examinations for the diplomas were—by the Examiners of the chartered body—and hence were not of the same character.

§ MR. ANDERSON
thought it was simply a question of skill. If there was a sufficiency of skill, it ought not to matter whether the examination had been gone through in England, Ireland, or Scotland. A principle of reciprocity ought to be established. It was absurd to say that those veterinary surgeons who were educated in England were not to be allowed to practise in Ireland and Scotland, or that those educated in Ireland and Scotland were not to practise in England. If there was not reciprocity, a system of trades unionism would be established.

§ MR. WHITWELL
said, it was extremely common in the North of England for members of the College of Surgeons of Edinburgh to be the only practitioners. If the clause was passed, it would be the means of disestablishing and disqualifying men who were acting there under certificates as at present granted.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
said, that the clause would not disqualify anybody. It only required persons who sought to practise to comply with the rules of the Royal Veterinary College of Surgeons.

MR. GORST
proposed, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 33, to leave out the words "body corporate."

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
said, he saw no present objection, but would express his opinion on the Report.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
said, that as he believed this clause would lead to considerable discussion, it would be best for the Committee to allow him to move to report Progress. The Committee would then have time to consider the clause, and would come into Committee with it fresh on their minds. He hoped the Committee would not occupy too much time in discussing the clause, but that they would pass it and the remaining clauses, and thus enable him to get rid of the Bill.

MR. CHAPLIN
Would the hon. Baronet state when the next Sitting of the Committee would be?

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
Friday next, at 2.

§ LORD ELCHO
said, that with reference to the division, some of the Members he understood had voted under the belief that, beside the payment of the fee, an examination would be required. He should take the opportunity on the Report of mentioning the subject again.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
, in answer to the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire, would tell him that there was an examination required, as well as the payment of a fee.