COMMITTEE. [Progress 24th July.]

HC Deb 26 July 1878 vol 242 cc396-450

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 33 (Prohibition of importation; slaughter or quarantine).

MR. W. E. FORSTER

, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 17, line 4, to leave out from the word "Act" to the words "seventy-nine," in line 5, inclusive, said: If the Committee agree with me, the result will be that as regards the importation of foreign cattle it will be left in the position in which it now stands. But I wish to refer to what was in the minds of many hon. Members when this clause was originally under consideration. Although we have not had the clause directly before us, we have had a kind of floating allusion or reference to it in all our discussions; and, under these circumstances, I think I shall be justified in detaining the Committee for a few minutes, while I express the view I entertain in regard to the clause. I think that the arguments for and against leaving things as they now are have been pretty well stated, so that I can hardly expect that there will be any alteration in the opinions of hon. Members. But there is one remark that I wish to make. I may observe that some other hon. Members have said that this change in the condition of foreign importation is necessary, because it has been proved by experience that discretion ought not to be left entirely to the Privy Council; and that, notwithstanding the discretion given to the Privy Council last year, with a view of keeping out the cattle plague, the cattle plague still came into the country. I have heard that argument used two or three times; and I hope the Committee will allow me to say that really it has nothing whatever to do with the question which we have before us. I am not going to weary the Committee by indicating the action of the Privy Council with regard to either of the inroads of cattle plague which occurred in 1872 and 1877. My own opinion is, that no regulation can be prescribed by Act of Parliament, and nothing that could have been done by the Privy Council would have prevented those inroads. Whether we stamped it out quite as quick as we should have done if this Act had been passed is another question. The reason I mention the matter is this. Let no one suppose that they would vote against my proposal for leaving things as they are under the idea that what the Government propose would make the slightest difference with regard to cattle plague, and for this reason—at this moment the Privy Council have power to prohibit the importation of cattle altogether from cattle plague countries. The Government continue that power; and, consequently, the restrictions for slaughtering at the port of landing have nothing whatever to do with prohibition altogether. Then it may be said—"Oh! but if we suppose that cattle are to be slaughtered at the port of landing generally, that would take away one chance of the cattle plague, because the cattle come, not from cattle plague countries, but from countries in contact or communication with cattle plague countries." There, again, no alteration has been made. The past rule and custom of the Department has been, in the first place, to prohibit the import of cattle at all from any country which has the cattle plague; secondly, to slaughter, at the port of landing, all cattle coming from a country through which the animals from Russia, or cattle plague countries, can have come. That was the reason why Holland was scheduled, until Holland passed a law preventing the importation of cattle into Holland. That was the reason why France was scheduled. And the real fact is, that when cattle plague came into this country in 1872 and 1877, all those countries were scheduled which had cattle plague, and the cattle were slaughtered at the port of landing in all cases in which the slightest danger was apprehended of cattle plague. I hope I am not unnecessarily detaining the Committee; but I want to explain that really this question has nothing to do with cattle plague. Now, then, we come to the question whether it is desirable to make the alteration? As the Bill was first brought into Parliament, slaughter at the port of landing was the universal rule. There was no exception whatever. But in the House of Lords so much argument was brought forward in debate, and so many facts were brought out in Committee, that the Government felt themselves compelled to change the rule, and to admit cattle from the United States and Canada. The Committee are very well aware that, yielding to the pressure of argument and of facts, the Government have found that they must make two changes since the Bill first came into the House. The first change was to admit into the inland markets the cattle of five countries— Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden; and then, when they found that that left matters in a most absurd and inconsistent position, the Government have, under certain conditions, restored the discretion of the Privy Council. But they still adhere to what they call the principle of exclusion, rather than inclusion. I do not think that it will make any very great practical difference ["Hear, hear!"] My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Phipps) says he agrees with me. If he really does, I do not think there will be much difficulty in persuading him to vote with me. [Mr. PHIPPS: It was the hon. Member for Leicestershire (Mr. Pell).] To my mind there must be some discretion placed in the hands of the Privy Council, in order to guard the necessities of trade. I can speak with some little experience on that matter. Whoever represents the Veterinary Department before the country is put in a most responsible, not to say difficult, position. From day to day, and from week to week, he has to interfere with almost the most important trade in the country — a trade in regard to which people are sensitive to an extreme degree—the trade of supplying them with what they want to eat. He is obliged to interfere with it, because he is responsible for doing his best to keep out disease. But he cannot have been in that office a week without feeling how very responsible a thing it is thus to interfere with the food of the people; and I do not know, with all the experience I have had in connection with the administration of the Department, that I ever felt more difficulty than in being aware, from day to day, that I might be called upon to take measures which I knew must cause an alteration in, and generally raise, the price of food—not, perhaps, throughout the whole country, but certainly in this large City in which we live. This being the responsibility of the matter — the responsibility of increasing the price of food, and, on the other hand, of doing your best to stamp out disease. I am perfectly sure that no Privy Council will very much care as to what is the presumption one way or the other. They will merely ask themselves—"What is our discretion, and what is our duty? Our duty is to let the country have as much food as it can get; let as much food come in as the people can possibly buy, without incurring danger from disease." Therefore, it will not make much practical difference to let them have this discretion. If this be the case, it is not too much to ask of the Government and of Parliament that the presumption should be in favour of free trade—that the presumption should be that we should get as many cattle as we can, and that we should not keep them out of the country, unless we are obliged to do so in consequence of disease. We have talked this matter over during the last two or three weeks, and we know very well, both from the Amendments which have been put upon the Paper, and from the statements of the Secretary to the Treasury and the supporters of the Government, that immediately the Act is passed, that cattle will be admitted from America, also from Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. There are 11 countries from which cattle are imported into this country, or 10, if you count the United States and Canada as one; and when this Bill passes there will be only four countries excluded, and from six the cattle will be admitted. Therefore, if you establish your presumption, it will be broken through at once by two-thirds of the exporting countries. I now come to the number of cattle. Last year there came 82,000 cattle from the four countries which would remain scheduled; while there were 116,000 from the six countries which you let in. I think I have said enough to prove my case; and it only remains for me to say that if the Committee will accept this proposition, I shall be quite prepared to allow to be embodied in the Bill instructions to the Privy Council to treat pleuro-pneumonia as a ground for slaughter, as has hitherto been done with cattle plague. I do not suppose anybody would think of prohibiting the import altogether on the ground of pleuro-pneumonia; but now we are going to take real measures to stamp out pleuro-pneumonia at home, I think the prevalence of it in an exporting country ought to be ground for slaughter at the port of debarkation, and that can be fairly met by some instructions in the Bill.

Amendment proposed, in page 17, line 4, to leave out from the word "Act," to the words "seventy-nine" in line 5, inclusive.— (Mr. William Edward Forster.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'but shall not take effect' stand part of the Clause."

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

No one can complain of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. E. Forster) raising this, which is the point upon which has practically rested all the discussion and opposition to the Bill; but I do not suppose the Committee will, for one moment, feel that, having introduced the Bill in the form it now stands, the Government are prepared to give way to him on this particular point. We have argued from the first that, whilst not attempting or wishing in the least to interfere with the free introduction of cattle into this country from abroad, we are bound to take steps for regulating their movement when they are in this country, so as to protect ourselves, as far as possible, from the introduction of disease. We have argued all through that this is not a case of free trade, and we are not proposing to restrict free trade. What we do want to restrict, and what we have a legitimate right to restrict, is free trade in disease. The real distinction and difference as to the treatment of the two cases is this. With regard to your home trade, you have it immediately under your own eye, and you are able, through your Veterinary Department and the local authorities combined, to ascertain what are the regulations dealing with disease, and what are the outbreaks of disease in different parts of the country; and, as soon as you have done this, you can at once bring your laws to bear on these outbreaks, and check them by the strength of the Privy Council. But that is not the case when you are dealing with cattle in foreign countries. It is true we may be informed by the courtesy of foreign Governments what steps they are taking to deal with these diseases; but we have had, only a few years ago, conclusive evidence that, in spite of all the international arrangements for the imparting of information, the cattle plague has beaten the authorities, and has arrived in this country before their information respecting it has reached us. That justifies us in dealing with the foreign import in the way we propose. We are not, and cannot be, in the possession of information with regard to foreign cattle the same as we are in regard to cattle at home. We cannot deal with their cattle while they are in their own countries; we can only begin to deal with them when they arrive here. Therefore, we are subject to disease coming to our shores over which we have no practical control; whereas, with regard to disease which arises in this country, we have the power to control it in our own hands. That, I think, is a strong argument in favour of making the presumption, contrary to what it has been up to the present time. The presumption up to the present time has been in favour of letting all these animals in; and the result has been we have had cattle plague twice within recent times, and we are constantly under the risk of having pleuro-pneumonia introduced from these countries.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

I think the Secretary to the Treasury has just made a statement which may mislead, although he has, no doubt, done it quite unintentionally. Cattle plague has come in twice from Germany; but, in both cases, the cattle were slaughtered at the port of debarkation.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

My impression is, that cattle from Germany were not slaughtered at the port before the introduction of the last cattle plague. However, the right hon. Gentleman is likely to be better informed on that subject than I am. But I place what we propose to do on the broad ground that we want some control over these animals; and we take extra precaution in making the presumption as we do, and giving the Privy Council discretion with regard to satisfying themselves that these counties are, both as regards sanitary matters and the regulations which they enforce, in a position to justify us in believing that we have got the same security as regards their cattle as we have in regard to home trade. I hope, therefore, the Committee will adhere to the principle as it is now in the Bill. It is not put there with any intention to hamper or stop the introduction of healthy animals into this country; but it is put there because the Government feel it is a power which is absolutely necessary if we are to attempt to deal with the introduction of disease from foreign countries.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

said, he had hitherto cordially voted for the Bill, because he wished to create that free trade which did not now exist. From all the information he had been able to collect, the farmers of this country were in a state of terror about the introduction of disease; and until that was removed, it was impossible to expect them to increase their herds and flocks. If they could once establish confidence in the minds of the farmers, so far from the price of meat being increased, he believed the price would decrease, because the stock of meat would increase. He knew no class who were less desirous than the farmers to increase the price of meat. It was in the belief that this Bill would not increase the price that he supported it; though, of course, whether it would attain its object was another thing. The Government had come forward and, upon their responsibility, declared that if they could once exclude the disease from this country the home stocks would increase; and therefore the Committee ought to support them in their attempt to accomplish that object.

SIR WALTER B. BABTTELOT

said, the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. E. Forster) had told them that foreign cattle were slaughtered at the ports of landing at the time of the last two outbreaks of cattle plague in this country. He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) believed that to be true; but the right hon. Gentleman did not go on to state that there were animals for store and breeding purposes which were admitted, and which were not slaughtered at the port, and that the attack first took place in the dairies. That showed how careful they ought to be. The right hon. Gentleman said that, practically, there was no difference between the proposal of the Government and his own Amendment. He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) would ask him, then, whether it was worth while fighting them on a point of that kind? If the right hon. Gentleman himself had brought in a Bill of that character, and had made great concessions in accordance with the views expressed by both sides of the House, as had been most wisely done in this case, would he have given way any further? Were they to stultify their proceedings by changing the whole face of that Bill? Let the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends now be satisfied and allow the measure to proceed, seeing that they had got all that they wanted, and the great object was now to make progress with the Bill. Hon. Gentlemen on his—the Ministerial —side did not mean to give way on that point, but would stand absolutely firm.

MR. RYLANDS

considered the speech just delivered quite refreshing. Now, what were the facts? In the first instance, the Government brought in a Bill in which they had no faith, and which was contrary to their own convictions. The Bill had been drawn upon lines which could not be defended, and they had continually yielded one point after another, so far as they had been allowed by their supporters; and now, when they came to one of the most important proposals of the Bill, the hon. and gallant Baronet opposite (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) said there must be no more yielding. He hoped, however, the hon. and gallant Baronet would allow them to give way on this occasion also. But however lightly hon. Gentlemen might treat this question of the interference with the import of cattle, it was one which was regarded with the greatest possible interest by the people of this country; and he was rather astonished that his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kincardine (Sir George Balfour) should have persuaded himself that it was of advantage to keep out foreign food. This Bill, from the first, proceeded upon the line of absolute prohibition of live cattle; and there was no doubt whatever, if that line had been carried out throughout the whole of the foreign importation, the effect would have been very materially to raise the price of food in this country. The Bill, therefore, in its original form, was a Protectionist one; and the Government, by their concessions, had admitted it would have seriously interfered with the supply of food. As regarded the Amendment now before them, his right hon. Friend had clearly shown that its adoption would not have any very material effect upon the action of the Privy Council, and he was not quite sure that it need necessarily have any effect at all; while it would have the advantage of showing to foreign countries what was our opinion in regard to free trade in this matter. The prosperity of England depended upon free trade; and he trusted it would not go forth that the House of Commons was unwilling to give facility for the importation of foreign food.

MR. CLARE READ

said, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Rylands) had repeated a statement he had made before—that when the Government introduced this Bill into the House of Lords it was for the total prohibition of the import of foreign cattle into this country. There was not a single word then or now in the Bill which prohibited the importation of foreign cattle. The hon. Member could not have read the Bill, the object of which was simply to prohibit cattle from coming inland, which was a very different matter to preventing their importation. At the present moment sheep were prohibited from coming inland, yet there had lately been a larger import of sheep than they had had for years, thus showing that slaughter at the ports did not prevent mutton from coming into this country from abroad. He had to express his gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) for what had fallen from him with respect to pleuro-pneumonia. His conversion in that matter had been slow; but he hoped it would be sure and certain. The right hon. Gentleman was evidently coming round; but he had not quite reached the true point. He really felt that what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford said, although it was but little benefit to the agriculturists, yet it was also a great point for them. However other things might be, he desired to have the law right; and he certainly thought that the proposal of the Bill was just, for, even if there were no cattle disease whatever in any part of the Continent, it must be admitted that after cattle had undergone the privations and miseries of a long transit and sea voyage, they must be more subject to disease, and, therefore, they should, at all events, be regarded with considerable suspicion. This should be the case were there no cattle disease on the Continent; but when they knew how rife cattle diseases were on the Continent, it seemed clear that what the Bill proposed should be done for the protection of the farmers of this country. The right hon. Gentleman said that only four out of 10 cattle-exporting countries would have their cattle slaughtered at the ports of debarkation; but he forgot that cattle from Germany and Belgium were prohibited at the present time.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he must beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon; he reckoned Germany and Belgium, and there were only 10 exporting countries.

MR. CLARE READ

said, he thought that if he were to reckon up the countries which might export cattle to us he should make about 12; but he would not further contest that point. What he wished to observe was, that cattle plague came in on two previous occasions. He knew that the right hon. Gentleman said he could not help letting in the disease; but that told in favour of the proposal of the Bill; for as soon as the disease overstepped its accustomed limit, it was almost certain to come into this country. On a previous occasion cattle plague broke out beyond its ordinary boundary, and it came into England even before the Germans knew it existed in their own country. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER said it came from a scheduled country.] That was the case; but if the Lords of the Council had prohibited then, as they prohibited now, the importation of cattle from Germany, we should not have had the cattle plague in this country. There was no doubt about that. If the present regulations were kept in force it would only be by some wicked conspiracy, or some unavoidable accident, that we could have the cattle plague again in this country. He felt very warmly on this point. Surely, hon. Gentlemen opposite would allow that hon. Members on this side of the House had made all the concessions which were requisite; and he trusted the other side would let the farmers have what might seem to some a shadow, or a phantom, advantage. But it was something to have the law in one's favour; and, in the name of the farmers of England, he demanded it.

MR. ARTHUR PEEL

said, the distinguishing feature of the Bill had probably been the many concessions which the Government had made. He did not say that in any taunting spirit; for those concessions had not been forced on the Government by any probability of their encountering an adverse majority, but by the force of right and reason. Ho gave his full testimony to the openness of mind and candour of judgment which the Secretary to the Treasury had shown in the conduct of the Bill. But what was the result of all these concessions? It was this—that they left a discretion to the Privy Council. What were the concessions? They were these—First of all, Canadian and American cattle were admitted. Then the Government consented to admit cattle from five European countries. Then the House found itself in a difficulty with respect to the Favoured Nation Clause and International Treaties; and the Government agreed to put all nations into one category, and make all equal before the law. But the Government would not get into that difficulty again by anything which they were now asked to do. The dis- cretion which they had now established with respect to the Privy Council would not get them into any difficulty as to the infringement of any Favoured Nation Clause which might have been entered into with a foreign country. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford had shown that no great practical difference would result if the change of presumption were made. He had shown that even if the law were left as the Bill proposed, as many as two-thirds of the exporting countries would still break through the rule, and that there would, therefore, be no practical difference in the importation of meat to this country. However that might be, he (Mr. Peel) did not put the case on that ground, but on a higher ground. Whatever might be the practical result, there was no reason why they should change the law; certainly no reason had been shown in the course of the debate why the law should be changed from what it was in the Act of 1869. The concession asked for from the Government was one that could do agriculturists no harm, while it would be of immense advantage on the other side, for the contention was simply this —that the Government should preserve the principle of Free Trade that had hitherto prevailed. Long after these debates had been forgotten, and the extenuating circumstances of the case had passed from men's minds, the principle would remain, if the concession were not made, that the Government had changed the presumption in favour of Free Trade into a presumption against Free Trade. The reason for doing this would be forgotten, and the Protectionists of a future day would be able to say that the English Government had changed the presumption from Free Trade to Protection. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had referred to the outbreaks of cattle plague in 1872 and 1877. Now, it was an undoubted fact, that in 1877 the rinder-pest came from Hamburg, and from a scheduled country. He could not understand what argument the Secretary to the Treasury could frame on such a fact as that. Why were the Government going to make this change? He understood the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) to say that cattle plague might exist in a foreign country; that we might not get adequate notice of it; and that some diseased cattle might slip into this country. That would be the case as the Bill was originally drawn. If they had compulsory slaughter, how were they to prevent a sick or diseased animal from coming in, and from being the means of conveying disease? He would remind hon. Members that when they said a single animal might convey disease, and that, therefore, thousands of animals ought to be slaughtered, they proved too much; for a single diseased beast might come into a port, and might be immediately slaughtered, and yet some man might have had communication with it, and might convey the disease elsewhere. That was the way in which disease had been communicated. In 1877 the spread of the disease was attributed, by those who ought to know, to the infection of a cowshed at Limehouse being carried to other cowsheds and other places in the Metropolis. He hoped that the concession asked for might yet be granted, for no reason had been brought forward why it should not be granted. Hon. Members on his side were as willing as hon. Members on the other side could be, that if disease was proved to exist on board ship the rest of the cargo should be slaughtered. When the hon. Member for South Norfolk taunted the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford on the subject of pleuro-pneumonia, and said that he was coming round, he would remind the hon. Member that the right hon. Gentleman introduced a clause into his Bill, or a regulation under the Bill, which had operated hitherto, that if a single beast in a cargo should be found infected, whether with cattle plague or pleuro-pneumonia, the whole of the cargo should be sacrificed. If that was a slight concession, he should like to know what concession the hon. Member expected? He would urge on the House that the concession now asked for should be made; because it was no light thing to vary the presumption that had existed for so many years. If they left the Bill as it was, there might be no practical result; but they would have taken a retrograde step in their attitude towards freedom of trade.

MR. PELL

said, they had been told more than once that there was no reason for changing the presumption; but he thought there was one obvious reason— namely, that when the presumption was on the other side they had had cattle disease imported. It was said that cattle would still come from foreign countries; and also, that if a diseased animal was brought here for slaughter, the disease might be communicated; but he did not think these were sufficient arguments against the proposal of the Government. Another argument of an extraordinary kind had been urged, that they must be careful how they dealt with foreign countries in the point of free trade. He was a free trader before he had a grey hair on his head; but he did not find that foreign countries were so ready to accept free trade. He did not know that any foreign country would make a protest against this country's dealing with foreign cattle in the way proposed. In his opinion, the placing the presumption as it was now sought to place it was more important than many hon. Members seemed to think. He held that the responsibility of the Privy Council should be greater than it was at present, and that they should act on the side of prevention, as the Bill proposed, only admitting cattle as far as, after some inquiry, they were satisfied that a country was free from disease. Several concessions had been made already on his side of the House; and unless it was to be all give and no take on that side, he thought they might fairly ask for a slight concession on the other side. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) himself said it would not make much difference; and he (Mr. Pell) thought it would be good taste on the part of the other side to give way on this point, and to allow the Bill to be brought to a conclusion.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

said, he would again urge that with perfect free trade, or as nearly perfect free trade as they could desire, they had not had cheap meat. On the contrary, year by year meat had risen in price. He must repeat that his wish was to obtain cheap meat for the people; and he believed that no Government ought to do anything which would prevent meat from becoming cheap. He was satisfied, from inquiries which he had made, that if they could keep away disease, as it was the object of the Bill to do, they would cause the home stock to be so much increased that a proper supply of meat could be obtained at home. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford had told them that the quan- tity of meat which was required could be supplied by 2,400,000. There was now a supply of 2,100,000; therefore, the whole supply expected was no more than 300,000. He found that already there had been a very considerable increase; and shortly, if only there was confidence on the part of the farmers, they might expect the required increase to be made up.

MR. FAWCETT

said, he hoped the Committee, before going to a division, would allow him to make a few remarks, to show the extreme importance of this point. His hon. Friends the Members for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) and South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) urged that to give way to the Government on this matter would be a very slight concession, and referred to the question as being one of form, and not of much practical consequence. He agreed with them that it would be a very slight concession, if they looked merely at the direct consequences which were likely to result from the Bill remaining in its present form. But he thought he could show that in that case the Bill would produce most serious consequences, which would be felt in every commercial and manufacturing centre in the country. They read in the papers of meetings of Chambers of Commerce, complaining of the depression of trade, and stating that the decline in our exports was mainly due to the hostile tariffs which were maintained against English goods. There was no doubt that there were at the present time hundreds of thousands of men in this country who were suffering greatly, and who were deprived of their honest employment owing to the serious reductions which were imposed upon them by protection on the Continent and in America. He had given some attention to the subject; and he was sure that no one who had examined carefully into the state of feeling on the Continent and in the United States at the present time could resist the conclusion that the Protectionist party in the United States, in Canada, and on the Continent was as eagerly looking out for every excuse to maintain a system of rigid Protection, as was a drowning man to clutch the first substance that came within his reach. He would show that this was no theoretical or fanciful grievance; and he begged the attention of the Committee to this point. The other day his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone) asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the English Government could not do something with regard to the most serious impediments which were being imposed on English trade by the Spanish Government? who were treating the trade of England with a harshness and an injustice that they were applying to no other trade or country. The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said, in reply, that the Government had remonstrated, as strongly as it was possible for remonstrances to be worded, against the conduct of the Spanish Government, but, hitherto, without the slightest effect. Now, let them consider for a moment the reason of the course adopted by the Spanish Government. What was their justification for thus singling out English trade for special treatment? This will show hon. Members the perilous path on which they were entering. The great excuse of the Spanish Government, in especially hindering the English trade, was this—They said that, whether intentionally or not, a great injustice was done to their trade by the two most illustrious free traders England had ever produced — he meant his right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), and his late distinguished Friend Mr. Cobden. They said, as their great ground for treating English trade with injustice, that when the Commercial Treaty was negotiated between France and England, certain arrangements were entered into which, whether intentionally or not—of course, unintentionally—placed the Spanish trade at a special disadvantage. Now, that showed how extremely tender and careful they had to be in their commercial relations with foreign countries. It was enacted in that Treaty, that all wines of less than 26 degrees of alcoholic strength should pay a duty of 1s. Then there was a sudden jump to 2s. 6d. The Spanish Government said that their wines were of 28 degrees of alcoholic strength, and were unjustly treated by having to pay a duty exceeding by 150 per cent what was paid by French wines. On this circumstance the Spanish Government rested their main defence for maintaining a rigid system of protection against English trade, which was felt so acutely by all who had trade with Spain. Hon. Members said their opponents ought to be generous to them, and ought not to impute Protectionist intentions to them when they had none: they said they did not wish to raise the price of meat, or place home produce at an advantage compared with foreign produce; they said they were as anxious for free trade as their opponents were. He should be very sorry not to accept these assurances unreservedly. He did not believe for a single moment that it was their intention or wish to re-introduce Protection with regard to English agriculture. But what they had always to look at in Acts of Parliament was, not the wish or the intention of the Act, but what would be its practical effect. Now, it seemed to him to be impossible to resist this point: if a very considerable section of the House believed, just as sincerely as hon. Members opposite did, in their opinion that this Act would be a Protectionist measure—["No, no!"] —well, they denied it, and he and his Friends believed it, but they were equally bound to accept the sincerity of each other's belief. If 150 or 160 Members of that House, and a large section of public opinion out-of-doors, after giving this question the most careful consideration, were prepared to say, as he for himself was prepared to say, that they believed the effect of this Bill, although that was not the effect intended, would be Protectionist, did not the House think that that belief would also be shared in by those Protectionist countries which were at the present time eagerly looking out for the slightest excuse for making their tariffs more hostile against the interests of England? If 150 Members of the House of Commons believed that the House was about to pass a Protectionist Bill, was it not likely that at least as large a proportion of the American Congress, or the French Chamber, or the German Parliament, would come to the same conclusion? And if that was the case, the House would see how it would most seriously weaken the hands of that party on the Continent, and in the United States, which was at present contending, under every difficulty and obstacle, for the maintenance or introduction of a free trade policy, which would have a practical effect on this country. He had no hesitation in saying, after having given some considera- tion to the subject—and he believed the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he were present, would bear him out—that the renewal of all our Commercial Treaties, whether with France or other countries, stood at present in a most critical position. No one could tell whether, with regard to France, for instance, the Protectionists in that country would not be sufficiently strong to prevent the Commercial Treaty with England from again being renewed. It was not necessary for him to point out to the manufacturers and other men of business in that House what a serious effect would be produced on English trade if all those Commercial Treaties should gradually fall through. He knew that this Bill was already welcomed by the Protectionists of other countries, who were beginning to say— "This is a powerful weapon in our hands." What would now be the position of Protectionists in the United States? They would read the papers, and would see that hon. Members, like the hon. Member for South Leicestershire and the hon. Member for South Norfolk, spoke of this matter as a slight concession. But what was the principle of the "slight concession" that was insisted on? It was this. Hitherto, in our dealings with the United States, we had been able to say—"We maintain towards you, not only with regard to agriculture, but with regard to other industries, that free trade shall be the rule, and restriction the exception." Protectionists would now, in a thousand different ways, turn round and say— "Oh, England has reversed her policy." It would be of no use for hon. Members to say why they had done it; foreigners would say—"You have reversed your policy. England is now, without giving us the slightest notice or warning, about to make restriction the rule, and free trade the exception." And that was exactly what hon. Members were doing. He should not have troubled the Committee at such length; but he felt that, considering that perfectly unrestricted commerce was never in a more critical or perilous position than at present, it was impossible to exaggerate the mischief that had been done, and that might still be done to English trade by an increase of the hostile tariffs of other countries. He thought that after it had been admitted that the direct consequences of this concession were slight, the House would be pursuing a perilous and dangerous policy if they placed in the hands of the Protectionists of other countries an argument which they would not be slow to use. The free trade party in other countries, and the friends of unrestricted commerce, would find that they had a more difficult task to perform, and that their struggle was harder than it had been before England departed from a principle which she had hitherto resolutely maintained. If it was necessary for the prevention of disease to impose restrictions, they should still cling as firmly as possible to the principle of free trade, and say, as they had hitherto said, that if it was necessary to impose restrictions, they should be imposed on the distinct and intelligible principle, that unrestricted trade should be the rule, and that any restriction should be the exception.

MR. NEWDEGATE

regretted that he should be obliged to tell the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), who had, perhaps, studied this question as much as anyone in that House, that this was not a question of free trade in cattle or in meat; it was a question of free trade or protection in disease. There was no restriction against the importation of healthy cattle, or of dead meat to any extent; but the restriction under the Bill was in the nature of a quarantine restriction, and it was entirely an internal and permissible arrangement. It had been pretended that the Bill would interfere with International Law. The Bill came, however, within the great exception of quarantine, and the only restriction was upon internal communication. Well, then, the whole argument, based upon free trade, fell to the ground. He had heard the free trade question argued ever since 1843; and he defied any sensible man to explain how the principles of free trade applied as an objection to the Bill, unless free trade in disease was meant. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford said—"Oh, we object to the principle being one of exclusion." What was the title of the Bill? Its title was the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill. Did the right hon. Gentleman object to the principle of excluding disease? If he did, he objected, not only to this measure, but to the existing Acts on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman went further, and said that the objection to all these Acts was the enormous responsibility which they imposed upon the Privy Council, because they made them literally traders in food. He felt the force of that objection, and he would have preferred the original principle of the Bill, which would have entirely relieved the Privy Council; but the pressure brought upon the Government by the importers and other traders in this country had been so strong that they found themselves compelled to abandon that principle.

SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONE

said, he felt bound to protest against the analogies that had been drawn by the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) in dealing with the question of cattle disease, and held that it was the duty of the Government to prohibit the importation of disease through whatever medium it was conveyed. He claimed to be as staunch a free trader during the last 30 years as any hon. Member of that House; and he must say that he had both heard and read with regret of imputations which had been thrown out against the promoters of this Bill, and those who supported them, that they were actuated by a desire to raise the price of meat. Nothing could be more absurd or more untrue; and he was astonished that hon. Members should have been found in any part of the House to countenance such a transparent fallacy. There were some hon. Members on his side of the House who were quite as anxious for the welfare of the working classes as were his hon. Friends below the Gangway, and he would make the same remark of hon. Gentlemen on the other side; and he thought it was unworthy of any hon. Members of that House to start such a theory for the sake of getting up a Party cry. What he firmly believed was, that the Government would have done far better if they had had the courage to persevere with their original intention, which was to insist upon compulsory slaughter at the port of debarkation. If they had done this, they would, perhaps, for a time have subjected themselves to the contumely of certain trading interests; but they would have adopted the only certain means of remedying admitted evils. In this matter he wished to make an appeal to his right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, who once took a very active part in preventing the spread of Asiatic cholera in this country. It happened that some years ago he (Sir Harcourt Johnstone) was at a certain port, and he received from one of the authorities there information that cases of Asiatic cholera were on board a vessel in the offing. He immediately telegraphed up to his right hon. Friend, who instantly sent down an Inspector, and he believed it was entirely due to the rapid action which was then taken that Asiatic cholera was prevented from getting a footing in this country. But who could tell in what manner the discretion of the Privy Council might be exercised? Who could tell whether they would always have at the head of that Department a man who would have the courage to act in a time of emergency? The President of the Privy Council might be a timid man, or a man who might be carried away by false notions of free trade principles; and he might feel that it would be unworthy of him, or dangerous to his Party, to put any vigorous measures in force. Therefore, it was far better and safer that the presumption should be as the Government had put it—namely, that the cattle should be slaughtered. He was sorry to have detained the Committee one minute, as it was very desirable that the Bill should be got through as rapidly as possible; but he felt bound to protest, not only against the imputations which had been made against the supporters of the Bill, but against the doctrine that it was wise to leave any loophole open whatever for the importation of disease into this country.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, there was no hon. Member on his own side of the House who more appreciated the concessions which had already been made by the Government than he did; and in proof of that he need only refer to the fact that he had withdrawn all his Amendments from the Paper in order that the discussion might be taken on his right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford's Amendment to this clause. He had done what he could to facilitate the progress of the Bill. He gave his hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir Harcourt Johnstone) full credit for sincerity in every word that he had addressed to the Committee; but his opinions were based upon a knowledge of one side of the question only. His hon. Friend was, no doubt, as zealous, honest, and earnest in his desire for cheap meat and cheap food of all kinds as he himself or any other hon. Member of that House; but when his hon. Friend drew the distinction which he had drawn and argued, that the opponents of the Bill were fighting a shadow, and anxious only for free trade in disease, he spoke from the point of view of the cultivator of the soil and a landowner. He (Mr. Mundella) wanted to point out the important bearing that the presumption of law which was now insisted upon would have upon the future industries of this country. The hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) had given it as his opinion that if there was no disease on the Continent at all the presumption of law ought still to be in favour of compulsory slaughter. What did that mean? What did words like those convey to the people of this country, and to the foreigner with whom they had to deal? Everybody in that House knew that in modern times free trade had been the greatest source of the increase in their national wealth, and all classes of the community had benefited equally thereby. What had been the result of the extension of that system to the Continent? They had Commercial Treaties with Continental nations, which involved a trade both ways of over £150,000,000 sterling; but, as his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) had pointed out, Free Trade was never in such jeopardy amongst Continental nations as it was at the present moment. And let him tell the House why the manufacturing classes on the Continent of Europe had all along been opposed to Free Trade. Their whole strength in regard to Commercial Treaties lay in the agricultural classes, who sent to this country the produce of the soil. They would have very little chance of maintaining a Commercial Treaty with France, but for the fact that that they took her wine, her butter, her poultry, and a number of other products which amounted to a very considerable sum in the year. In like manner, as regarded Denmark and other countries, they took their cattle, and the fact was that the exports of agricultural products of the Continent of Europe were largely in excess of the exports of manufacturing products. In America the export of manufacturing products was less than 12½ per cent of the entire exports. It would be seen, therefore, that the only hope which they had of maintaining commercial relations with those countries upon a proper footing was the hold which they had upon the agricultural classes. Let him point out what had been happening, and why he ventured to bring this argument before the Committee at the present moment. It might be said that it was very little germane to cattle. If so, it was because hon. Gentlemen opposite knew nothing about the matter. They were purely agricultural Members, who had not a commercial idea in their heads. At the present moment there was, and had been for some time past, very great manufacturing distress throughout the whole world, and the manufacturers in every country with which England had a Commercial Treaty had been appealing to their Government to get rid of that Treaty. In France there had recently been an inquiry into the causes of manufacturing and commercial distress, and he held in his hand a Report of the French Senate upon that subject, which he had obtained at the Foreign Office the day before. To what did they attribute the manufacturing distress which prevailed? Mainly to English competition, and they demanded that the duties which now protected their industries should not be diminished in any case; but that they should be raised in all the cases of those industries which were now suffering, and that no further negotiation of Treaties of Commerce should be effected. Well, what were they doing by this Bill? They were proposing that the presumption of law should be in favour of exclusion. But the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) had, he thought, admitted that he was contending almost for a shadow. He (Mr. Mundella) said, honestly, that he had no desire to admit any diseased animals into this country. The hon. Baronet the Member for Scarborough (Sir Harcourt Johnstone) had said that this presumption of law should be maintained, because the Privy Council could not be trusted. But the Government had trusted the Privy Council in the Bill. As the Bill now stood, it was the Privy Council who alone must exclude diseased cattle. What, then, was the good of this presumption? Why should not the presumption be as directly in favour of Free Trade, with the strictest injunction to the Privy Council to exclude diseased cattle, as it should be in favour of compulsory slaughter with power to that body to admit healthy cattle? It would only be reversing the presumption; but, at the same time, a most important principle was involved. What would happen when they passed this Bill? These discussions would go to America, and everything which had been said in the country or in that House implying a want of confidence in Free Trade would be seized upon by the Protectionists of that country and diligently circulated in the newspapers from New York to San Francisco. Why should there be any contention about the reversal of this presumption? If once this country was brought into a state of commercial distress through any foolish legislation of this kind, it would be not merely the industrial classes, or the manufacturing interests, but the landowner and the farmer who would suffer. The latter would have to pay heavy rates, and they would suffer heavily from the depreciation of their property. They had not a single Acton the Statute Book which implied any want of confidence in the principles of free trade. Why should this Act be the first? He appealed to the Committee and to the Government to allow the presumption to be that England admitted Free Trade in every department of food, and simply insisted upon excluding unhealthy cattle.

MR. CHARLEY

said, he had great pleasure in supporting the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford. This was a Consolidation Bill, and he saw no reason why the Consolidated Acts should be made so much more severe with regard to the universal compulsory slaughter at the out-ports. If the Privy Council had been trusted to take foreign animals out of the Schedule, why could they not be trusted to put foreign animals into the Schedule? Were they to be put into the Schedule by Act of Parliament merely to give the Privy Council the trouble of taking them out again? The cattle wore to be condemned to death by Act of Parliament, and they were afterwards to be granted a free pardon by the clemency of the Crown; because, practically, the Privy Council represented the Crown. He thought that such a provision was contrary to common sense, and that it would be far better to leave it to the discretion of the Privy Council whether cattle should be put into the Schedule or not. There was another point of still more importance. A concession was made in the House of Lords of a most valuable kind, and that was that Canada and the United States should be excluded from the Schedule. The Bill came down to that House with a clause in it giving a discretion to the Privy Council to put the United States into the Schedule or not. A discussion took place on going into Committee, and a further concession was made by Her Majesty's Government—namely, that five healthy countries might be exempted from the Schedule by the Privy Council. Then a cry was raised that the Government was violating the "Most Favoured Nation Clause" in Treaties, and they made a still further concession that the Privy Council should have the power of taking all foreign cattle out of the Schedule; but, in granting that concession, they proposed to do away with the concession granted in the House of Lords. [Cries of "Agreed."] They were not agreed. This was a matter which affected his constituents, and he had a right to defend their interests; and he would do so, notwithstanding any interruptions that might be offered to him. He repeated that it was a most unfortunate thing that the Government, while making the concession that the Privy Council should have power to take all cattle out of the Schedule, should have proposed to do away with the concession which they made in the House of Lords— that American cattle should not be put into the Schedule at all by the Act of Parliament. This change affected them very greatly in Salford. In the course of the year before last, there were in the Sal-ford cattle market 3,243 American cattle, and last year there were 6,254. The means of transit had so greatly improved that he believed that in the course of time Salford cattle market would be very largely supplied by American cattle. Then why did the Government propose to level down the American cattle, and put them into the Schedule? The proper thing to do would be to level up the other cattle, and put them on the same footing as that on which American cattle were put when the Bill left the House of Lords.

MR. NORWOOD

said, that as he had not taken part in the debates on this Bill, he might be permitted to offer a few remarks, especially as he was a Member of the Committee which sat last year, in whose deliberations he had taken somewhat of an active part. He had listened with the greatest attention to the observations of his hon. Friends the Members for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) and Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), and he confessed that, Free Trader as he was, he could not agree with their arguments. He did not believe that the provisions of the Bill would ultimately affect the importation of cattle from healthy countries; and, so far from the principles of Free Trade being infringed, he looked upon those provisions merely as a matter of police and sanitary regulation with respect to the cattle after they had been imported. The Bill was an experiment. When they found that the agriculturists of this country were willing to submit to considerable restrictions for the purpose of stamping out pleuro-pneumonia and foot-and-mouth now existing, he thought it was only fair and reasonable that regulations should be imposed with respect to the import of foreign cattle, so as to prevent the introduction of disease into the country. When the Report was under consideration, it was clear that the majority of the Committee were in favour of the total exclusion alive of cattle from certain countries; and he ventured to submit a more moderate proposal in the interests of all parties—namely, that they should admit cattle from all countries, but that they should be slaughtered on debarkation, and he made an exception in favour of the United States and Canada. His proposal was ultimately rejected by the agricultural Members of the Committee, who affected to think it simply monstrous. He must say, in justice to his right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, that when he (Mr. Norwood) proposed his Motion simply as a compromise, based upon the understanding that the agriculturists should submit to bonâ fide restrictions, his right hon. Friend said—" I think you are going too far in the way of concession; but if it insures unanimity in the Committee, I shall not oppose." Notwithstanding the concession made by his right hon. Friend, the agricultural Members were so determined to carry their views to the full extent, that they voted against a scheme which their Party was glad to accept in the House of Lords, and with respect to which still further concessions had been made in this House. He did not think slaughter at the ports of debarkation would have any permanent effect in increasing the price of food. Until the regulations of trade were fully understood there might be some small advance in price, because there might be some little hesitation at first in sending foreign cattle to this country, subject to any restrictions at all; but that difficulty would soon vanish, and. he thought the controversy ought now to cease by the acceptance of what he, for one, thought a most fair and reasonable compromise.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, the speech to which they had just listened was, in part, a reply to the remarks of the hon. Baronet the Member for Scarborough (Sir Harcourt Johnstone), who advised the Committee not to make of this question a Party cry. He thought it must be perfectly evident that it would not be either possible or expedient to make a Party cry of a matter upon which it was evident that the Party itself was divided. In this matter, for instance, he continued to differ from the opinions of many of those with whom he generally acted. As far as he knew, no hon. Members below the Gangway had ever imputed to the Government or their supporters any design or desire to raise the price of meat. He could not conceive the imputation of so much wickedness—for it would be nothing short of it—being made in that House. All that was said by the hon. Members to whom he referred—and they believed it —was that, in their opinion, a rise in the price of meat would be the result of this legislation, and particularly of the Bill as originally drawn. He had no intention to go into a lengthy discussion of the principles of Free Trade; and he was perfectly willing to accept the analogy set up by the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) between restrictions against disease and quarantine. In quarantine regulations, the presumption was always in favour of the healthy subject, and not, as in this case, against it. The hon. Baronet the Member for Scarborough referred to a case in which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford prevented the landing on our shores of a crew among whom Asiatic cholera had broken out; but the right hon. Gentleman did not, from a fear of Asiatic cholera, decree that no one from any country should come to this country, unless he could prove himself absolutely free from disease. Yet that was the presumption in this Bill. The arguments which had been used appeared to him to be inconclusive, or to go very far beyond the conclusions; because it was said that the fact of cattle plague and other diseases having been imported in spite of the present restrictions, justified the particular distinction now proposed to be made. But let them take some recent cases of the outbreak of cattle plague. The change of presumption, which would still leave a discretion to the Privy Council, would not prevent the possible importation of cattle plague from a country in which its existence was not at the moment known, either to the Government of that country or to the Home Government. It was intended by the Privy Council to make exceptions in favour of such countries as, say, Denmark; but could it be said with absolute certainty at any moment that there was no case of pleuro-pneumonia in Denmark? And it must be remembered that a single case of disease existing there might be imported into this country, even when the presumption was against Denmark and other countries, as proposed by the Bill. If it was wished to preclude the possibility of this, they must go very far beyond, and do very much more than, what was now proposed. They must go back to the original principle of the Bill, and prohibit the entrance of any live stock inland. That was consistent and logical; but it was not done, because the supporters of the Bill could not persuade themselves or the country that any regulations of the kind could be imposed without raising the price of meat. When the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) argued that a dead meat trade would take the place of a live meat trade, the only tiling to be said in reference to such an opinion was that it ran entirely counter to all the evidence given before the Committee. He should be glad to believe, with his right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, that the point at issue between them was only a small one. The hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) held the same opinion, and urged those who thought with him (Mr. Chamberlain) to accept a compromise by making a concession. He, on the other hand, could not help thinking that the earnestness with which hon. Members opposite clung to this small point was due to an impression on their part that it might become a very important distinction, and it was perfectly evident that its importance depended upon the way in which it was interpreted by the present and future Privy Councils. If they were to be beaten, they would at least have called attention to the nature of the difference between them. The operation of the Act would be carefully watched, especially with regard to this important point of presumption; and they would have on record speeches to show that, at all events, when the Act passed, it was not intended that the presumption should operate against healthy cattle coming from healthy countries.

MR. BELL

said, he should be one of the last men to impugn the motives of those hon. Members who opposed the Bill, or of the Government and those who supported them. Certainly, he should not think for a moment of impugning the motives of his hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir Harcourt Johnstone). The hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) spoke of the Bill as an experiment. All legislation of this kind must necessarily have something of a more or less experimental character; because it was almost impossible to predict, with any degree of certainty, what the effect of such legislation might be on the trade of the country. He would, therefore, ask whether the present time was a very appropriate one in which to commence a course of experimental research into a question of this kind? In his opinion, the country was never less fitted than now for the making experiments of such a nature. Owing to the high price of food in this country, the workpeople were very ill able to purchase a sufficiency of it to enable them to discharge efficiently their labours. He agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), that compulsory slaughter at the ports of debarkation must increase the price of meat; but this was not the limit of the evil. If the importation of meat to this country was restricted in any way, to that extent a bar was put upon the exportation from those coun- tries which supplied us. If there was one thing more conspicuous than another, it was, that as the prices of animal food and the other necessaries of life in foreign countries were low, wages were low also; and at the other end of the scale the two facts, relatively, were observable. When in Belgium butcher-meat could be obtained at half its present price, the value of labour corresponded with that factor. In the year 1825, the entire earnings of a miner in Prance were only £15 a-year, and he was within the mark in saying that at that time the price of meat was not more than one-third of its present price. Now, however, that the price of food had risen to double its value at the time of which, he was speaking, they found miners in the same district where they once earned £15 a-year, now earning as much as £45. The effect, therefore, of preventing a free export of cattle from foreign countries upon the wages paid in those countries would be to depreciate them, and so to have a tremendous effect upon our power to compete with those countries in the markets of the world.

MR. JACOB BRIGHT

pointed out that Parliament was about to make a fundamental change with regard to the law of trade in cattle, and yet nobody was to be a gainer by it. The presumption of law was that cattle were to be excluded; but the discretion vested in the Privy Council was to remain as before. With a hungry people—and they were very likely, from time to time, to have a very hungry people in this country—the Privy Council would be obliged to use its discretion wisely, and to admit from foreign countries cattle that were free from disease. Therefore, as there would practically be no change in the policy of the Privy Council, he saw no reason for making this change in the law. He could not agree with the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) in thinking that the hon. Members for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) and Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) had not made out a case in support of their views. He, on the other hand, thought they had made out a very strong case; and he thought, further, that the time at which the Government had imposed tremendous responsibilities upon the country was not the one at which anything should be done to shake, in the slightest degree, the great fabric of Free Trade.

MR. D. DAVIES

said, it seemed to be assumed that, if this Bill passed, the quantity of cattle bred and fattened at home would increase. That might be true; but it was also true that they had already at home a larger number of both population and cattle than the natural products of the country could support. The farmers had, in order to fatten their stock, to buy large quantities of oilcake, Indian corn, and other materials from abroad, notwithstanding the high prices paid for beef. There were, as a general rule, losses by the transaction. It must also be borne in mind that if Parliament passed an Act which would have the effect of injuring the trade of the country generally, the masses of the people would have no money, or very little, to spend in the purchase of beef, no matter how much of it was produced at home. He remembered very well the time when the Welsh mutton could be bought at 2½d.. per lb. As for the dead meat trade, he could not approve it; and he did not believe that the people generally would approve it. Dead meat, imported from abroad, generally meant bad meat; and he felt sure that the majority of those who ate it once would be careful not to eat it a second time. The Government had already made several large concessions, and he hoped they would not refuse this last small one which was asked.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he thought the question had been thoroughly thrashed out; and, therefore, he should say nothing in reply. At the same time, he wished to say that the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) seemed to be labouring under a misconception in regard to his course concerning the Bill.

MR. NORWOOD

said, he could not have made himself clear when speaking a short time back. What he meant then to say was that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford said he should not oppose his proposal, if he found the Committee in its favour. When it was found that some Members of the Committee were dead against it, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford became a perfectly free agent, and had since acted in perfect consistency with his position.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 191; Noes 111: Majority 80.—(Div. List, No. 242.)

MR. RITCHIE

said, he did not propose to move the Amendment on the clause which stood upon the Paper in his name.

Clause agreed to.

Expenses of Local Authorities.

Clause A (Expenses out of local rate) agreed to.

Clause B (Relief of boroughs from contribution to county expenses).

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, he did not know whether the hon. Baronet who had charge of the Bill had considered the point raised by the Amendment he was now about to propose to the clause. It was as follows:—In new Clause B, to follow Clause 43, page 21, line 16, after "(2)" to insert the following words:— The local authority of the Metropolis shall be exempt from contributing towards the expenses under this Act of the local authorities of the counties within which the Metropolis is situated," &c. His impression was that some such Amendment was necessary, the words of his Amendment being exactly those which it had been found necessary to insert in the Highways Bill, in order to exempt the local authority of the Metropolis from contributing towards the expenses of that Bill.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, he thought that the hon. Baronet would see that the Amendment he proposed was unnecessary. The Amendment, of which the hon. Baronet had given Notice, would treat the Metropolis as though it were a borough within a county; whereas the Metropolis had never been treated on that footing. The Metropolis was a distinct and separate local authority, and no county rate had ever been levied within it; and, therefore, it occupied a very different position from a borough within a county. He was informed by the best authority that the Amendment of the hon. Baronet was quite unnecessary; and, therefore, he could not give his assent to its being introduced into the Bill.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, that of course he was not qualified to give an opinion adverse to that of lawyers; but the Committee would recollect that an Amendment precisely similar to his own had been introduced into the Highways Bill for the purpose of exempting the Metropolis from being compelled to contribute to the expenses to Be incurred under the provisions of that Bill. The fact was that the Metropolis did contribute to the county rate. Although there was a distinct clause in the Highways Bill providing that it should not apply to the Metropolis, it was nevertheless found necessary to insert words of this character, in order to exempt the Metropolis from the 'operation of the provisions of the Bill, as far as taxation was concerned.

SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG

said, that, in his opinion, the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) was really required in order to exempt the Metropolis from the operation of this clause; and, therefore, he hoped that the hon. Baronet who had charge of the measure would not object to adopt it. In any case, the insertion of the Amendment could do no harm; and it, therefore, would be wise to accept it, in order to remove any doubt on the subject.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, that he could not allow surplusage words to be inserted unnecessarily into the Bill, because they might lead to many misconceptions and difficulties. He had been informed by the best authority that there would be no liability on the part of the Metropolis to contribute to the rates to be levied under this measure. The Metropolis occupied the position of being a separate and distinct authority, and all rates levied within it were applicable solely to its own purposes. He must, therefore, ask the Committee to decline to insert in the Bill an Amendment which had been brought forward not in pursuance of a legal opinion, but merely to gratify an idea.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, that the Committee were left in a very unhappy position with regard to this Amendment. They ought to have had either the opinion of the President of the Local Government Board himself, or of the Law Officers of the Crown, whose duty it was to assist them in questions of legal difficulty with regard to the necessity for this Amendment. Here, unfortunately, was the fact that the hon. Baronet who had charge of the Bill had stated, upon the strength of the information that he had received, that the Metropolis was not liable, in any case, to contribute towards the county rates; whereas he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) knew that such was not the case. The hon. and gallant Baronet the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg), had asserted that the Amendment was absolutely necessary to prevent the Metropolis being compelled to contribute to the rates to be levied under the Bill; and, in these circumstances, the Committee were entitled to have some more reliable legal opinion upon the effect of the measure than they had yet had. He wished to impress upon the Committee the fact that, although a clause in the Highways Bill expressly declared that the provisions of the measure should not apply to the Metropolis, yet it had been found necessary to insert a clause expressly exempting the Metropolis from contributing to the rates to be levied under it. That clause had not been inserted in the Bill as mere surplusage, but as a matter of necessity; and, therefore, he asked the Committee to support him in pressing his Amendment.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, that he rose in order to save time, which was being wasted in what appeared to be a useless discussion. The hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) evidently believed that he was doing right in pressing his Amendment, and the hon. Baronet who had charge of the Bill clearly was of a different opinion. He did not think that the objection of the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury to the Amendment was satisfactory, and as he appeared to think that the Amendment, if introduced into the Bill, would be mere surplusage, it could do no harm to insert them for the present; and if, after due consideration, it was found to be unnecessary, it could be struck out upon the Report.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, it appeared to him, on the contrary, that the best plan would be to bring up the Amendment again upon the Report, if it was found to be necessary. He had been informed most distinctly by a high authority that the Amendment was unnecessary. In those circumstances, he must oppose the Amendment, leaving it to the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) to bring it up upon the Report, if he should still be of opinion that it was desirable to insert it. In the meantime, however, he would take the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown upon the subject.

MR. GORST

said, that he did not think that the Committee ought to be asked to decide this question upon a mere suggestion from a particular Government Department. They ought to have had the legal opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown before they were required to give a decision upon the point. It appeared to him that the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) was perfectly right in insisting upon his Amendment; because, unless some words of this kind were inserted in the clause, the Metropolis might be liable to contribute to the rates to be levied under the provisions of the Bill. He based his opinion upon the necessity there appeared to him to exist for inserting some special words, which would exempt the Metropolis from being rated under this measure. He should, therefore, support the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea.

SIR ANDREW LUSK

said, that the City of London was a county within itself, but that was not the case of the Metropolis; and he was afraid that if this Amendment were not agreed to, those parts of the Metropolis which were within counties would be liable to the county rate, to be levied under the provisions of the Bill. If the hon. Baronet who had charge of the measure were to agree to insert the Amendment for the time being, he might consult the Law Officers of the Crown on the subject, and, if necessary, move to strike the words out on the Report.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, that naturally he had no wish in the least to do anything but what was right by the Bill, and that he was perfectly willing to consult the Law Officers of the Crown upon the point if necessary, and to bring up the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) upon the Report, if, in their opinion, it was necessary for the protection of the Metropolis that the words should be inserted in the clause. He could assure the ton. Baronet that he was only guided in the matter by the information—the very positive and distinct information—that he had received from the draftsman of the Bill, that the Amendment was not necessary, and that it would be mere surplusage if inserted in the clause. He must, therefore, repeat that he should be most happy to consult the Law Officers of the Crown on the subject, and to leave the matter as it stood until the Report.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, that he had just sent down for the Highways Bill, and on looking into it, it appeared to him to be a precisely similar case to the present. The clause in that Bill stated, most distinctly that no part of the measure was to apply to the Metropolis—and it must be remembered that the Bill under discussion contained no such provision—and yet, in the face of that clause, it had been found necessary to insert words identical with his Amendment, in order to exempt the Metropolis from contributing to the county rates levied under it. When application was made to the Local Government Board on the point, it was said they knew that the Metropolis would be liable to be charged under the Highways Bill, and they intended that it should be; and it was only after considerable pressure was brought to bear on them that they consented that the Metropolis should be exempted from the operation of the Bill, and that the words of his Amendment should be introduced into the Bill. And yet the hon. Baronet in charge of the present Bill had told the Committee that no county rate could be levied on the Metropolis. He maintained that the hon. Baronet was mistaken in his view of the matter, and his opinion was supported by that of the hon. and gallant Baronet the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works. In these circumstances, he felt bound to take the opinion of the Committee upon the matter, and must press his Amendment to a division.

MR. A. GATHORNE-HARDY

said, he must ask the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) to be a little careful on this point; because his Amendment, if adopted, might have an effect which he did not contemplate. If words of exemption were inserted in the Bill, it might hereafter be held that Statutes in which they were not found applied to the Metropolis, and that it was, therefore, liable to contribute to rates not now levied within its area.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, that the difficulty to which the hon. Member for Canterbury referred had already arisen; because, as he had over and over again pointed out, the words of his Amendment had already been inserted in the Highways Bill; and if they were not introduced into the present measure, that fact might be used as an argument to show that the Legislature intended that the Metropolis should be liable to be charged under the Bill.

MR. GREGORY

said, that on referring to the 2nd Schedule of the Bill, he found that there the Metropolis was specially exempted from the operation of the Bill; and, therefore, the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea was unnecessary.

SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTH

said, that the hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill appeared to think that the Metropolis was a county in itself, just as the City of London was. Having himself helped the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) to bring in a Bill to make the Metropolis a county, he could assure the hon. Baronet that it was not a county at present. Seeing that whoever had informed the Secretary to the Treasury was entirely wrong upon the point, he did not think that the Committee would be much inclined to place reliance upon the information which he had received from the same quarter upon other matters connected with the subject.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, that he would not give the Committee the trouble of dividing upon the Amendment; because, he should be very sorry if, after having done so, it should subsequently turn out that the Amendment was necessary, and that he had been misinformed on the point. He must, however, state distinctly that if, on consulting the Law Officers of the Crown on the subject, he was advised that the words proposed to be inserted were unnecessary, he would move their rejection on the Report. In answer to what had just fallen from the hon. Baronet the Member for Hastings (Sir Ughtred Kay-Shuttleworth), he wished to say that he was solely responsible for the assertion that the Metropolis was a county in itself, and that he had not been informed that such, was the case by the draftsmen of the Bill. What he had been informed was, that this Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea treated the Metropolis as though it were a borough within a county, which it certainly was not.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, he hoped that the hon. Baronet would not be satisfied, if he were told that the Schedule made the matter sufficiently clear; because the Committee should be very suspicious of legislating by Schedules, instead of placing the matter beyond all doubt by a distinct provision in the enacting part of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

moved, as an Amendment, in new Clause B, to follow Clause 43, page 21, line 19, after "shall," to insert "in such case."

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, he must ask the hon. Baronet whether the Amendment was really necessary?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, he did not wish to press the Amendment if the hon. Baronet thought it was unnecessary; and, therefore, he should ask for leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.

Clause C (Outstanding rates) agreed to, and added to the Bill.

Borrowing by Local Authorities.

Clause D (Power for local authority to borrow).

MR. GREGORY

said, that he had the following Amendment to move in the clause:—In page 21, line 40, after the word "to," to insert the words "any period not exceeding." He begged to move the Amendment.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, he had no objection to the insertion of the words.

Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.

MR. GREGORY

said, he had a further Amendment to propose in the same clause which was in the same line, to leave out the words "or less."

Amendment agreed to; words struck out accordingly.

Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.

MR. STAFFORD HOWARD

moved to insert a new clause after Clause 9, as follows:—

(Notice to be given of disease.)

"Upon any animal becoming affected with disease, the owner or the person in charge shall immediately report the fact to the local Inspector, or such other person as the Privy Council may by General Order direct.

"If the owner or person in charge of an animal so affected fails to give such notice within reasonable time after the outbreak of the disease, he shall be deemed guilty of an offence against this Act, unless he shows to the satisfaction of the Justices before whom he is charged that he did not know of the same being so affected, and that he could not with reasonable diligence have obtained such knowledge."

The object of the Clause was to impose a penalty on persons who might wilfully conceal or omit to give notice of an outbreak of disease. In Clause 30, Subsection i., the Privy Council might, from time to time, make Orders for prescribing for and regulating the notice of disease. Parliament aimed at stamping out disease, and it seemed to him the most important step in the process was to discover disease as soon as it broke out. In this view, the insertion of some such clause as he proposed was most necessary. He did not at all wish to interfere with the discretion of the Privy Council, as the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) seemed to think, when he (Mr. Stafford Howard) raised the question on Clause 30; but he thought it most important that every man who had cattle, or who was in charge of cattle, should know that he was bound by law and not merely by the Order of the Privy Council, to give notice of disease the moment it broke out.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

asked the Committee not to accept the clause. It raised a question which had always been left to be dealt with by Orders under Act of Parliament, instead of by the Act itself. There was an advantage in leaving these Orders to the discretion of the Privy Council, because they could vary their Orders according to the necessities of a particular case. In the event of an outbreak of cattle plague, the ordinary notice would not suffice. The provisions of Clause 30 were ample to meet the necessities of the case. The clause proposed by the hon. Member would probably be evaded in this way. An owner would say—"I am not convinced that the animal is sick," or, " it is not to my mind diseased; " and thus time would be lost, whereas Clause 30 required that notice of any illness should be given to the Privy Council. The Privy Council Orders were enforced by the 54th clause, which made it an offence against the Act to violate them; so that, with the 30th and 54th clauses, there was absolute certainty that the required notice not only of disease, but of illness would be obtained.

MR. CHAPLIN

hoped the clause would be withdrawn, in favour of one to be proposed by the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read), which he thought would meet the views of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Stafford Howard).

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he had been certainly inclined to support the hon. Member in this clause; but the answer given by the Secretary to the Treasury tended to show that Clause 30 gave all necessary powers. He, therefore, advised the hon. Member to withdraw the clause for the present, and to bring it forward again on Report, if, upon consideration, he found that his views were not sufficiently met by Clause 30. He believed there was a unanimous feeling on both sides of the House that there should be a clause requiring notice of disease.

MR. CLARE READ

agreed that it was necessary to have a clause of some kind providing for notice, and that there should be a statutable penalty for omitting to give notice of disease. The argument of the Secretary to the Treasury appeared to him to be an argument against any clause appearing in the Bill. He (Mr. Clare Read) did not wish to construct a form of notice; but he contended that the Bill ought to provide for notice being given to the Inspector or police constable in the neighbourhood. If the Act of Parliament said that notice must be given, there would be no possibility of people excusing themselves by saying they had not read the Orders in Council.

THE O'CONOR DON

did not know if it were right to discuss at that moment the Amendment given Notice of by the hon. Member who had just spoken; but if it were, he would say that it seemed to him not advisable to put such a clause in the Statute. A man might have cattle infected, and unless he were skilled, be perfectly innocent of the fact; and yet he would, under this clause, be liable to a penalty. He preferred the Bill as it stood. He denied that an Act of Parliament was more likely to be known by every individual farmer than an Order of the Privy Council.

MR. GREGORY

said, it appeared to him that a provision in an Act of Parliament would have greater publicity and produce more effect upon the public mind than an Order in Council. Ho would, therefore, prefer to see a provision as to notice incorporated in the Act; but he thought the proposed clause defective in two respects. First, it required that notice should be given to the Inspector, who might live at a considerable distance from the premises on which the disease broke out. It would be better to provide that notice should be given to the constable who was generally accessible. Secondly, it was doubtful whether the clause would, as it stood, include horses in its operation. It would be well to withdraw the clause, and take the discussion on the one to be subsequently proposed.

MR. STAFFORD HOWARD

said, he only wished to see it laid down by the Act that every owner should be bound to give notice of disease. He would gladly withdraw his clause in favour of that of the hon. Member for South Norfolk.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. STAFFORD HOWARD

moved to insert the following clause:— If any person exposes in a market or fair, or other public place, where horses or animals are commonly exposed for sale, or exposes for sale in any sale yard, whether public or private, or places in a lair or other place adjacent to or connected with a market or fair, or where horses or animals are commonly placed before exposure for sale, or sends or causes to be carried on a railway, or on a canal, river, or other inland navigation, or on a coasting vessel, or carries, leads, drives, or causes to be carried, led, or driven on a highway or thoroughfare any horse or animal affected with a contagious or infectious disease, he shall be deemed guilty of an offence against this Act, unless he shows to the satis- faction of the justices before whom he is charged that he did not know of the same being so affected, and that he could not with reasonable diligence have obtained such knowledge. The object of the clause was to impose a penalty on persons wilfully exposing diseased animals in public places. It could not be objected to the clause that it did not form part of the Act of 1869, for he had copied it from that Act. It seemed to him that the best mode of preventing the outbreak of disease in markets was to impose a severe penalty on the persons who wilfully and knowingly drove diseased animals about, and to and from public places. As the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury had laid great stress on the fact that the Bill was, to a great extent, a re-enacting measure, he hoped the clause would be accepted.

Clause (Horse or animal affected with a contagious disease exposed for sale,)— (Mr. Stafford Howard,)—brought up, and read the first time.

Question proposed, " That the Clause be read a second time."

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, he was sorry to disappoint the hon. Member by asking the Committee not to agree to the clause. His objection was that it was now proposed to deal by Statute with parts of a subject that had been dealt with under the old Act by Order. The hon. Member, in proposing to enact a portion of the Order framed under the Act of 1869, left out other important portions of the clause in that Act dealing with the subject. In Sub-sections ix., x., xi., of Clause 30, there were ample instructions as to the Orders which were to issue. Seeing that the Privy Council had ample power to issue Orders to the effect of the proposed clause, and would undoubtly issue such Orders; and seeing that Clause 54 provided penalties for the infringement of the Privy Council Orders, there could be no want of security for the carrying out of the hon. Member's object. The Privy Council would have the power of enlarging the scope of their Orders to suit cases that arose if the Bill were left in its present shape; and he, therefore, hoped the clause would not be accepted.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

thought the insertion of the clause would make the general public aware of the law, and would, at any rate, insure some minimum regulation. The Secretary to the Treasury said that the Privy Council would undoubtedly issue Orders; but, though it was expected that they would, it was not so absolutely certain that the desired provision would be made, as it would be if it was actually inserted in the Act. There was nothing in the proposal to insert this clause inconsistent with the principle of the Bill, and it would be a mistake to allow people who read the Act to see that it was without an important provision that appeared in the previous Acts.

MR. SYNAN

thought the clause would provide for cases in respect to which no Order was issued by the Privy Council. He saw no objection to the clause, provided it were amended by the insertion of the words "wilfully and knowingly;" because he apprehended that a man might expose an animal in a fair, and not know that it was infected. This clause would actually subject a man to punishment, unless he showed to the satisfaction of the justices that he was innocent. Now, a man was not bound to prove his process. His guilt ought to be proved; and he never knew of a clause creating an offence that did not also state that the offence should be wilfully and knowingly committed.

MR. M'LAGAN

preferred the clause as it stood. It was said that the prosecution should make out a man's guilt. But the possession of the diseased animal would prove him guilty, unless he proved that he did not know it was diseased.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

referred the Committee to Clause 26, already passed, and warned the Committee that if they adopted this clause, the whole framework of the Bill would be altered.

MR. ANDERSON

maintained that the whole principle of the Bill was to leave the presumption against the cattle in the first place, and against the owner in the second. Unless that were otherwise altered, he thought the Amendment quite consistent with the Bill, and he would support the hon. Member (Mr. Stafford Howard) if he went to a division.

THE O'CONOR DON

could not understand how hon. Members could hold that the provisions of a Statute would be better known than Orders in Council which would be published in the local newspapers. He hoped the Government would not accept the clause.

MR. PELL,

while appreciating the excellent motive of the proposer of the clause, deemed it exceedingly imperfect, and thought it would tend to mislead people as to the extent of the law.

SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONE

thought that a clause in an Act of Parliament would be held in greater reverence than any Departmental Order; and a clause of this nature, which existed in the Act of 1869, could not do harm, but would strengthen the Act.

MR. GORST

thought the clause inconsistent with the principle of the Bill, which was to give powers to the Privy Council, and to trust to that body to make regulations. The Committee must either pass a Bill in which the whole of the intended regulations should be expressed, or leave it to the Privy Council to exercise the powers intrusted to them of making regulations and carrying them into effect. The insertion of this clause would tend to make the Bill a measure of patchwork.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, the circumstances contemplated by the clause proposed to be introduced into the Bill, were provided for by the wording of the 54th clause already decided upon. The making of regulations of this kind came within the powers conferred by the Bill upon the Privy Council, with whom the matter should be allowed to rest. He pointed out, besides, that the clause proposed by the hon. Member (Mr. Stafford Howard) rather unfairly upset the whole drafting of the 54th clause, which, if the alteration were made, would have to be re-submitted.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

considered the reply of the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury, to the effect that the Privy Council should be trusted to do all that was necessary for the suppression of disease, somewhat inconsistent with the observations he had made a few minutes previously with reference to the clause, when he spoke of laches on the part of the Privy Council. He (Mr. Chamberlain) thought that if that body were to be trusted at all, it should be as little as possible. In his opinion, it was certainly desirable, whenever it became proper to define an offence which might be committed against an Act of Parliament, that the subject should not be left to be decided by Orders in Council which might be already a great deal too numerous. He reminded the Committee that in past years the conduct of the Privy Council in this respect had not been altogether satisfactory. Again and again had disease been spread throughout the country in consequence of the exposure of infected cattle at fairs and other places. He had been informed of the case of a dealer who, failing to get rid of a number of infected animals at one place, had actually taken them, with all their contaminating influences, to no less than three fairs in Ireland. The offence, one of the most serious that could be committed, was perfectly easy of definition, and should form part of their statutory enactment. He hoped the hon. Member (Mr. Stafford Howard) would press his clause, and, if necessary, divide the Committee upon the question.

MR. ANDERSON

remarked, in reply to the statement of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), to the effect that the clause was inconsistent with the principle of the Bill, that they had been told at the beginning of the debate, that as the Privy Council had not done and could not do their duty with respect to cattle diseases, a new Bill was required to enable them to do it. Hon. Members on his side of the House had endeavoured to make the Bill more effective in that direction than it was in its original form, but were now told that they would not be allowed to do so. The clause proposed by the hon. Member (Mr. Stafford Howard) was to be regarded as an instruction and guide to the Privy Council, in the very matter in which it was alleged they had not done their duty, and he, therefore, hoped it would be pressed.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 71; Noes 187: Majority 116.—(Div. List, No. 243.)

MR. CLARE READ

, in moving to insert, after Clause 29, in page 12, the following new Clause:— Every person having in his possession or under his charge an animal (including a horse) affected with a contagious or infectious disease shall, as far as practicable, keep that animal separate from animals not so affected, and shall, with all practicable speed, give notice of the animal being so affected to the Inspector or to the police constable of the district where the animal is. The constable shall forthwith give notice thereof to the Inspector of the local authority, and the Inspector shall forthwith report the same to the local authority and to the Privy Council, said, that although he was not at all wedded to the words of the Amendment, which were taken from an Order in Council that had existed in very much the same form for the last 12 years, he trusted the proposed clause would meet with the sanction of the Committee; and if the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury would say that he would, on the Report, introduce words embodying the principle that there should be a statutory obligation on the part of the owner of a diseased animal to give notice of the fact, he should be very well content.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, the same objection applied to this clause as to the previous clause just decided against—namely, that it was at variance with the scheme of the Bill, which was that the Privy Council should possess the power of making as many Orders in Council, beyond those specified by the Act, as might appear necessary for dealing with cases of the kind indicated by the Amendment. Every publicity with regard to disease was insured by the powers given to the Privy Council in the 30th clause— ''for prescribing and regulating the notice of disease, or of the illness of an animal, to be given to or by any person or authority;'' and he ventured to think that, although by adopting the Amendment then before the Committee, the giving of such notice would be made a statutory obligation, its effect might be found to be in direct opposition to the very principle sought to be enacted. Beyond that, if the Amendment were agreed to, its application must necessarily be restricted by the actual wording of the Act; while if the subject were left to be dealt with by an Order in Council, the words of such Order could, when necessary, be varied and made more explicit. The Committee would see that by this means far more real restriction would be placed on diseased cattle than by the new clause, as suggested by his hon. Friend. Again, a man who was not quite certain that his animal was diseased, would probably keep it for some time to make sure, before giving notice; but, under an Order in Council, he would be obliged to give notice at once, and was subject to a penalty for not doing so. It was clear, therefore, that if the Orders in Council were made as public in the district in which they were to be enforced as the Bill required, the Committee had a security for notice being given, and attention being called to the existence and outbreak of disease, which went far beyond the fixed words that would be put in the Statute if the Amendment were accepted. He hoped his hon. Friend would see that an attempt had been made to meet the cases at which he and the Committee were aiming, in a way that he ventured to consider preferable to the insertion of the proposed clause. He hoped the Committee would adhere to the form in which the Bill was drawn.

MR. ANDERSON

was sorry that the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury had not accepted the clause; because he understood that the hon. Member for East Cumberland (Mr. S. Howard) had withdrawn his Amendment, which was of a similar character, in favour of that of the hon. Member for South Norfolk.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

reminded the Committee that he had said he should resist the present clause on the part of the Government.

MR. ANDERSON

would be justified in saying there was a general consensus of opinion in favour of the clause of the hon. Member for East Cumberland, who had withdrawn his clause to make way for that under discussion.

MR. CHAPLIN

regretted that the Amendment, to which he thought great importance attached, would not be accepted. He could not follow his hon. Friend (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) on to his ground of objection that the clause interfered with the general scheme of the Bill. So far from that being the case, it would, in his opinion, work with the Bill, by providing security against the outbreak and spread of disease, in addition to the other restrictions contained in the measure and the Orders which might be issued by the Privy Council. [Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: The Privy Council might vary their Orders.] That was precisely one of those things which it was not desirable to vary. They wanted to impose on people who had reason to suppose that an outbreak of disease had occurred among animals in their possession, the necessity of telling the nearest constable that such was the case. There was another point to which he would for a moment call the attention of the Committee. There were certain outbreaks which would not always come under the notice of the Privy Council. During the last few months a very serious disease had prevailed among horses belonging to the large breeding studs in the neighbourhood of London, and a frightful epidemic, which he believed to be pleuro-pneumonia, and contagious, had existed in the breeding establishments at the Royal Park, Middle Park, and at Hampton Court. The losses incurred had been very heavy, and amounted, in one case, to 40 foals out of a stud of 70. There was nothing to impose on these establishments, in which there were horses of very great value, the necessity of giving information. The consequence had been' that the mares had spread the disease all over the country on their return home. He could speak from his own knowledge that people in Yorkshire had lost many thousands of pounds, which would have been saved if the owners had been under the obligation of declaring the outbreak of disease at the time it was first discovered. He hoped the Amendment of his hon. Friend would be accepted by the Government; if not, he was prepared to vote for it on division.

MR. SYNAN

agreed with the opinion that the clause was in no way inconsistent with the scheme of the Bill. He could not, however, vote for the clause, unless the word "knowingly" were inserted in it, because a man might have in his possession a diseased animal without knowing it; and because, if the word were not inserted then, in the case of his afterwards moving its introduction, he might not succeed with his Amendment.

MR. PELL

saw some objection to the Amendment, on the ground that it destroyed the completeness of the Bill; but the clause was a very important one, and he suggested that it should be added at the end of Clause 54, where it could not interfere with the drafting, so as to provide that every person having in his possession, and under his charge, animals infected with disease, should be bound, under the Act, to give notice thereof.

MR. M'LAGAN

pointed out that it was absolutely necessary to insert the word "knowingly" in the clause. In the case of the disease called glanders, for example, there were many persons who did not know what it was. Within his own knowledge, a glandered horse had been treated during six months for influenza; and, in another case, a veterinary surgeon decided that a horse was not glandered, when the animal was actually suffering from that disease.

MR. CLARE READ

said, it was very necessary to insert the clause he proposed in the Bill. At present, the Privy Council could issue Orders to the same effect, and anyone disobeying those Orders was really disobeying the law. Therefore, those who opposed his Motion ought to have known that hitherto the principle of it, in an Order of the Privy Council, was law, and if they objected to it, they ought to have raised the question before. He would accept the word "knowingly," which it had been suggested he should add to his clause, and he would willingly bring the matter up on Report; but, at the same time, he wished to have an intimation from his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury, as to whether he would allow the principle of his clause to be embodied in the Bill.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, he must impress upon the Committee the fact that Orders of the Privy Council formed part of the measure, and, therefore, they were the law. It was because he wished to meet cases mentioned in the clause of the hon. Member (Mr. Clare Read) by an Order of the Privy Council, and not by any part of the Statute, that he asked the Committee not to accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend. What had been done in the past by the Privy Council they might guarantee would be done in the future. They had been trusted in the past, and had, as his hon. Friend admitted, made Orders which had the effect of law. Yet now, his hon. Friend asked them to destroy the whole framework of the Bill, by inserting a clause to provide for a thing which the Privy Council might accomplish by an Order.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

said, the reason his hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) brought forward the clause was, because it was very well known that in many cases people, who well knew what they were about, had evaded the Order, and failed to give notice of disease. It was that each individual might be warned that he had to give notice as soon as possible of the existence of disease, that the clause had been proposed. He asked the Secretary to the Treasury to consider carefully the statements which had been made to the Committee, for he believed the object that the hon. Member for South Norfolk had in view could be inserted in the Bill without affecting any of its other provisions. He believed that no Order of the Privy Council would have that effect, and that the only way to meet the case was to have a clause in the Bill by which it could be publicly known that a heavy penalty would be inflicted on persons who failed to give notice of disease.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, there was that power in the Bill as it stood. Under the 54th section, it was an offence to evade any Order of the Privy Council. Power was taken in the Bill to make public, through the local newspapers, every Order in Council which was issued; and, therefore, there would be that publicity in every locality, the want of which was now complained of. Under those circumstances, he believed the Bill effected all that his hon. and gallant Friend wished.

MR. W E. FORSTER

said, he was compelled to ask a question before the division, which was probable, was taken. He did not wish to move to report Progress, although if he had to do so he would. He wanted to know when the Bill would be taken again?

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, the Government proposed to take it at the Evening Sitting, in order to avoid the necessity of a Morning Sitting on Saturday.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, in that case, he must propose his Motion to report Progress. At the beginning of that Sitting the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Leader of the House, most distinctly stated that if the Bill was not carried at that Sitting there would be a Morning Sitting on Saturday. At the Evening Sitting that night there would very likely be a long debate on the affairs of South Africa. Considering the importance of the Cattle Bill, he did not think it was at all fair to ask the House to go on considering it at 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning, and he did not think the promoters of the Bill would gain anything by the attempt. He reminded the Committee that if it was distinctly stated that a Bill, if not carried at one Sitting, should be taken the next day, it was contrary to all precedent to depart from such an engagement.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."— (Mr. W. E. Forster.)

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, he must remind the Committee of what had been inferred by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford. It was, that he (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) was acting apart from his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had done nothing of the sort. He had stated that the Bill would be taken again that evening, in consequence of a communication from his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He certainly should not have ventured to reverse the decision of the Leader of the House in a matter of so much importance.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he had not made any charge against the Secretary to the Treasury. All he had said was that it was contrary to precedent to do that which, at the beginning of the Sitting, the Leader of the House said should not be done.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

had not understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make any definite statement. He understood him to say he would defer his decision until the close of the Sitting.

MR. CHAPLIN

said, there was a wide-spread impression that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did use the words to the effect that the Bill would be proceeded with on Saturday morning. Under those circumstances, he thought it might be well to report Progress, with leave to sit again.

MR. J. COWEN

reminded the House that many hon. Members were engaged in it until between 3 and 4 o'clock that morning; and he thought it a most unreasonable thing to put an important Bill down for that evening, when it certainly could not be considered until after midnight. That being so, he hoped the Government would stand by the implied arrangement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

MR. ANDERSON

said, a most important part of the Cattle Bill remained to be discussed, and the Government actually proposed to take it at 3 or 4 in the morning. He pressed on the Chancellor of the Exchequer the fairness of abiding by what he said at the beginning of the Sitting.

THE O'DONOGHUE

denied that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made any definite statement, beyond saying that he should state what he intended doing before 7 o'clock.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he did not know the Question before the Committee.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he had moved to report Progress, in order to know when the Bill would be taken again, and, to his surprise, the Secretary to the Treasury had replied that night. He (Mr. Forster) had said he understood there would be important Business to be taken that night on the Motion for going into Committee of Supply, and that therefore the Cattle Bill could not come on before midnight, and he reminded the House that there was still very important matter to be considered in the Bill. He had also referred to the statements of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at the beginning of the Sitting, which certainly gave him and many other hon. Members the impression that if the Bill was not concluded that day it would be taken on Saturday.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, when he made that statement, he did not mean if the Bill was not finished at the Morning Sitting only, but at the two Sittings, as he thought it probable that it might come on in the evening. But he understood, from what he gathered in different parts of the Committee, that it would be very distasteful to have a Morning Sitting, and that they would rather go on that night. He had been told that they would be able to take the Bill that evening. Of course, when the House reached it that evening, they could decide whether they would go on; but at present he did not propose to fix a Morning Sitting for Saturday.

MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING

said, the proposal for a Morning Sitting on Saturday was made with the view of promoting another Bill which was being forced on at the risk of losing a very important measure, in which all the people of Ireland were interested—the Intermediate Education (Ireland) Bill. In forcing on that other Bill—the Irish Sunday Closing Bill—in the place of this more important measure, hon. Members did a most dangerous thing, and they would bring upon themselves an inquiry, if not censure, from the people of Ireland.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would tell the Committee that he would not take the Cattle Bill that night, because it could not possibly be reached before 12.30. Not only were there Motions on going into Committee of Supply, but a large number of Bills were down for that night; and, therefore, the Government would really gain nothing by putting the Bill down. Although they might go through the clauses, they could not possibly take the Schedules, as there was a good deal of debatable matter in them. Then there was the question as to the form which the Government Amendments relating to the slaughter of foreign cattle would take; and although he hoped they would arrive at a satisfactory conclusion on those Amendments, and come to a compromise, still the agreement to such a compromise must be preceded by a considerable amount of discussion. It must be apparent to all that it would be impossible to take the discussion at 3 o'clock in the morning. He could assure the Irish Members in the House that in taking an active interest in that Bill he had no desire to obstruct either of the two Bills relating to Ireland, both of which had been alluded to. They had no idea of opposing the Irish Sunday Closing Bill, or the Intermediate Education Bill; and, as regarded the latter, he supported its policy, and would do nothing to prevent its passing.

MR. SYNAN

, as a honest supporter of the Cattle Bill from the beginning, felt it rather hard to be kept up until 3 or 4 o'clock discussing the clauses. He preferred very much continuing the discussion at a Morning Sitting on Sa- turday. He believed if there was a Morning Sitting on Saturday the Bill would be passed.

MR. O'SULLIVAN

said, the difficulty could be got over if private Members who had Motions on the Paper would give way, and let Government take the Bill directly the Evening Sitting commenced. He was one who had a Motion down, but he would freely give way. Such a course would be much better than sitting on Saturday, when certain proceedings might be taken which would carry on the Sitting even on Sunday.

THE O'CONOR DON

certainly understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say at the beginning of the afternoon that there would be a Morning Sitting on Saturday, irrespective of the Cattle Bill; and, in fact, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned other measures to be taken at the Sitting. Since then the right hon. Gentleman had been told that if there was such a Sitting, a Bill not at present before the House might come on; and, that being so, it was quite apparent why the proposal, which had been made quite irrespective of the Cattle Bill, had been abandoned. The real fact was that the right hon. Gentleman was afraid if there was a Morning Sitting, a Bill might come on, in which the majority of the House took a deep interest.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, that what his hon. Friend (the O'Conor Don) had said was perfectly true. He had understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say there would be a Morning Sitting to take the Cattle Bill, if it was not finished, and also to take other Bills.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

admitted that at the beginning of the Sitting he contemplated a Sitting of the House on Saturday; but, at the same time, he said he must reserve any decision upon the matter. Since then, he had ascertained that it would, under all the circumstances, be inconvenient to a very large proportion of hon. Members to sit on Saturday; and, with reference to what the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) had said, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would not flinch from what he had said. It was perfectly true that if there was a Morning Sitting on Saturday, other Business besides that appointed by the Government would probably be taken, and that had something to do with his not asking the House to meet. He did this, not out of any antagonism to the Bill which many were desirous to discuss—and he thought he had shown himself ready to help on the Bill—but because there was a difference between asking the House to meet on Saturday for the purpose of getting through Government Business, which might occupy two or three hours, and asking the House to meet for the purpose of taking Business which, as they knew very well, was likely to last for a great number of hours. He declined to fix a Saturday Sitting for the convenience of the House; and when he had to look at the convenience of the House, that certainly was an important consideration.

Question put, and agreed, to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.