HC Deb 31 July 1878 vol 242 cc806-29
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, he proposed to carry out the alteration he had promised the Committee with regard to quarantine. He moved the following Amendments to the Schedule:— Page 44, line 24, leave out " for dairy or breeding purposes or;" page 44, line 25, after "exhibition," insert "or for other exceptional purposes;" page 45, line 1, leave out from "station " to " thereon," in line 20, and insert "except on conditions prescribed by general or special Order of Council.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

observed that, as he understood the alterations, they would practically have the effect of preventing store cattle from being brought into the country.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, that the Amendments would not prevent animals intended for exhibition or for scientific purposes coming in; but all other store animals were prohibited from coming in except after quarantine inspection and supervision.

MR. CLARE READ

quite understood how store cattle would be affected by the Bill. They could be imported from America and other places from which the Privy Council permitted fat cattle to be landed without slaughter, without other restrictions than the usual 12 hours' quarantine and inspection on landing. But store cattle coming from infected countries would be prohibited entering the country alive, except under the conditions laid down.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, that when the Bill was before the Committee on a former occasion objection was taken on the ground that store animals, which were the most likely to introduce disease, were not efficiently excluded. He gathered that it was the almost unanimous opinion of the Committee that the regulations for the admission of store animals after a quarantine of 56 days would prove so restrictive as to be practically useless. Therefore, he had thought it better to limit the power of introduction of store animals and confine it to those intended for exceptional or scientific purposes, leaving a discretion in the Privy Council to decide the application of any person who might de-sire to import store animals, and to impose such conditions as it thought fit. He believed that the provisions as they now stood would not exclude animals brought over for exhibition or scientific purposes; but would, by their restrictive action, prevent the introduction of animals brought over for dairy and store purposes, which were understood to be the most liable to bring over disease.

MR. CLARE READ

said, that as the Bill was originally drawn there was a long quarantine imposed on all store animals. But there was nothing now in it to prevent a grazier going to Liverpool and buying 20 half-fat animals from America and placing them on his farm.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

observed, that it was easy enough to legislate with regard to store cattle; but it was often utterly impossible to distinguish between fat and store cattle. He did not see why, if fat cattle from foreign countries could be bought and taken inland, store cattle also should not be treated in the same way.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

remarked, that the clause restricting the importation of store beasts would not apply except in the case of the scheduled countries.

MR. SYNAN

said, that all countries had now been placed on a level, and power given to the Privy Council to admit both store and fat cattle from any particular foreign country. In his opinion, the Amendments under consideration were a necessary part of the abolition of quarantine.

Amendments agreed to.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

moved, in page 45, to leave out after line 30, to end of Schedule, and insert as new paragraph—

IV.—Other Foreign Countries.

"In relation to foreign animals, other than those brought from the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, if, and as long as, from time to time, the Privy Council are satisfied, with respect to any foreign country, that the laws thereof relating to the importation and exportation of animals, and to the prevention of the introduction or spreading of disease, and the general sanitary condition of animals therein are such as to afford reasonable security against the importation therefrom of diseased animals, then, from time to time, the Privy Council by general or special Order, may allow animals, or any specified kind of animals, brought from that country, to be landed, without being subject, under the provisions of this Schedule to slaughter or to quarantine, and may for that purpose alter or add to those provisions, as the case may require; but every such Order shall forthwith, after the making thereof, if Parliament is then sitting, and, if not, then forthwith after the next meeting of Parliament, be laid before both Houses of Parliament."

He said, that he need not detain the Committee, after the long discussions that had taken place, by going at length into this clause. The Amendment was proposed by the Government in order to carry out the changes which they had consented to make in the Bill. He now asked the Committee to adopt the paragraph in the Schedule, as one which would give the Privy Council power to decide whether foreign countries were in such a condition as to permit the introduction of animals from them into this country. In the belief that the paragraph would carry out the views of the Committee as expressed on former occasions, he asked that it might be adopted.

MR. CHARLEY

inquired why America was deprived of the privilege of free importation permitted her under the Bill as amended in the House of Lords?

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, that it was after considerable discussion that the Government was convinced that it would be most satisfactory to prevent the least possibility of doubt with regard to the Most Favoured Nation Clause. Although the Government was quite satisfied that its proposals raised no question as to the infraction of that clause, yet it was quite prepared to meet the views of others, and place the matter beyond question. He would point out to his hon. and learned Friend that it was impossible to deal broadly with the exception taken as to the Most Favoured Nation Clause, and yet to put America in an exceptional position. So long as the Government considered that the Most Favoured Nation Clause was not interfered with, there was some reason for allowing the freedom granted to America; but when a change was made, and all possibility of doubt removed as to that clause, it was obviously impossible to exclude America from the operation of the Bill. Perhaps he might also point out that the very condition that led the Government to omit America from the Bill would influence the Privy Council in acting in the direction desired by the hon. and learned Member. It was quite impossible to make an exception in the case of America if they wished to maintain this clause.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, it would be impossible, after the discussion on the Most Favoured Nation Clause, to make America an exception to the rule. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Charley) himself spoke in favour of the Re-solution which he (Mr. Mundella) moved on the subject, and yet he now wanted to make America and Canada exceptions to the general rule. He thought all had been done in reference to the Bill which ought to be done. All the substantial points which the Opposition contended for had been attained; and he believed very serious results would follow if any distinction were made between America and other places. After all, America was the most Protectionist country England had to do with. We had Favoured Nation Treaties with most Continental nations; and yet America, above all others, was the most exclusive against the admission of our manufactures. The hon. and learned Member for Salford said that, with respect to its produce, we should give America an exceptional advantage over all nations; but he (Mr. Mundella) said it could not be done. He should be glad to see all cattle coming in free — he should like, if possible, that some should have an advantage over others; but he could not support the doctrine of the hon. and learned Member.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

, as one who had been described as an active opponent of the Bill, was bound to say, with the introduction of this amended clause by the Secretary to the Treasury, he thought the ground for any further opposition had been cut away. For his part, and on the part of those whom he represented, he accepted the concession as a very liberal one on the part of the Government; and believing it would satisfy all reasonable demands—as that was probably the last opportunity he should have of speaking on the Bill—he ventured to say the opposition to it, such as it had been, was fully justified by results. There was no doubt the discussion which had been initiated on that side of the House—and which he, to a certain extent, had endeavoured to carry on—had had the effect of materially changing the character of the Bill. The House would remember that, when first brought forward, the Bill contained clauses by which all foreign fat cattle would have been slaughtered. By the first amended clause numerous exceptions were made, and now all countries were admitted in the same position. It was true there would be a kind of protection against disease under which it would be required to be shown that reasonable precautions had been taken against disease, and under which, at the same time, the discretion allowed to the Privy Council was so wide, and the direction of that discretion so clearly defined, that he did not think it would be possible for any Privy Council, without pressing the law in a most unfair and improper way, to exclude any country in which the conditions were such as justified the exportation of cattle. Under these circumstances, it appeared to him that if there was to be any change whatever in the law affecting foreign cattle, it could not have been a change less likely to be injurious than that which would ultimately find its place under that Bill. With regard to the regulations of the home trade, he thought it would be admitted, by hon. Gentlemen opposite, that the Bill had been very materially improved in Committee, and much larger powers given to the Privy Council, in order to prevent disease in the home trade. Under these circumstances, he must say, although he regretted on many occasions having had to address the House during the progress of the Bill, he did not think the opposition had been altogether unnecessary.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

desired to raise his protest against the surrender by the Government of nearly everything he considered valuable in the Bill as introduced. Under the Bill as first drawn, in order to prevent disease at home foreign cattle from European countries were to be slaughtered at the port of debarkation. Farmers undertook, or they were understood to be prepared, to submit to very considerable restrictions at home for the purpose of dealing with disease, provided that they had security against the continued importation of disease from abroad. But it seemed to him that the clause now about to be introduced would do away with nearly the whole of this security; because they had it upon the best authority they could have in that House—that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster)—that the new system, in its practical results, would be very little different from the old. He (Mr. J. W. Barclay) asked, whether it was fair, or to be expected, that farmers would submit to increased restrictions and regulations at home without having additional security against the importation of disease from abroad, as they were led to expect under the Bill? He admitted that he did not think the restric- tions with regard to home traffic were sufficient, and he tried to make them so. But although they were not sufficient to prevent disease, they would cause farmers a considerable amount of annoyance and trouble. Instead of the measure being an improvement over the existing system of legislation, so far as farmers were concerned, he thought they were placed at a disadvantage. As to the restrictions necessary to cope with home disease, great powers were given to the Privy Council. The House had not had the courage to decree imperative restrictions under the Bill; and he did not see how they could expect the Privy Council to have the courage which the House had not got. For these reasons, he thought the Bill fell very short of the expectations formed of it when introduced into the House; and, so far as he might be a judge, it was no material improvement on the existing system.

MR. RYLANDS

did not rise to defend the Bill from the criticisms of his hon. Friend who had just sat down, nor did he say it was as good a measure as he could have wished to see passed by the House. But he must say he thought the Bill had been very much improved during its passage through Committee. Hon. Gentlemen on the Conservative Benches took this view—believing that there should be every possible restriction on the importation of foreign animals, in order to avoid any risk whatever of spreading disease, they were of opinion that great impediments must be placed in the way of importing food from other countries. On the other side of the question he, and those who acted with him, considered that every possible facility should be given to the importation into this country of foreign food; and they contended that England could afford to run a little risk, with the view of securing a large supply of foreign meat. He was disposed to believe that, with regard to foot-and-mouth disease, there were no such circumstances attending its spread in England as would at all justify the very extreme measures which had been taken under the existing Act by the Privy Council, and which might be taken under the paragraph they were now considering. At present, the regulations under which animals were imported from abroad were these. If any one beast was found to be infected with foot-and-mouth disease, then the whole of those which came in the vessel with the one had to be slaughtered. It was shown, in evidence before the House of Lords Committee, that the effect of that regulation of the Privy Council was to impose very heavy losses upon the importers of foreign animals, and, as he thought, entirely without sufficient justification. He would take but two cases from the Returns which had been made by the Privy Council. It appeared that, in 1877, we imported from Denmark 1,680 animals, and but 11 were found to be diseased. And yet, because these 11 were infected, the whole of the others—healthy beasts—had been slaughtered. Take the case of the Netherlands, as the second instance he would give. In the same year 1,458 diseased animals came from that country, and, in consequence, 133,723 were slaughtered. It appeared to him that what was wanted to be impressed upon the Privy Council was this—that the object of the Bill was not to interfere with the importation of food, but that the arrangements as to foreign imports should be such as to secure reasonable and fair protection to importers as well as to others; but certainly not, on account of a few cases of foot-and-mouth disease, to slaughter all the animals which were healthy, simply because they came in the same ship with the infected ones.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, as he took part in the debate which took place on the subject on a previous occasion, he did not think he need now say more than one or two sentences. The clause proposed by the Secretary to the Treasury contained instructions to the Privy Council as to how they were to use their discretion. He considered the clause would be a great improvement to the Bill. There was great objection, properly raised, to the words which stood in the Bill previously; but those now substituted for them were much more reasonable, and made a considerable difference. All that was wanted was security against the importation of diseased animals. No one wanted anything but that. We did not care whether other countries got disease or not, comparatively, if we did not get that disease into England. He could not say he really thought we had much ground to object to the new clause as it stood. He thought his hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read), and those Gentlemen who were acting with him, had no reason to object to it; because if they got reasonable security against the importation of disease, he was sure they did not want more. Therefore, he could not help feeling that, after a good deal of talk, they had arrived at a very fair arrangement in the matter. There was only one proposal that he had to make, and that was in line 8, where it said "the Privy Council, by general or special Order, may." He would move to strike out the word "may," and substitute "shall." He could not imagine that there could be any objection to that Amendment. While the Act would instruct the Privy Council that they were to keep animals out of the country unless there was reasonable security against the importation of disease, there was no one but what would be so much in favour, not merely of free trade, but of trade generally, as to admit that if reasonable security was provided then there ought to be no discretion, but a necessity, to admit animals. He, therefore, moved that the word "may" should be struck out and the word "shall" substituted.

COLONEL MURE

agreed with the observations and proposal of his right hon. Friend below him (Mr. W. E. Forster). But he desired to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, what was the object of introducing, in line 8, the words "or any specified kind of animals?" because, if the country was free from disease, all kinds of cattle would be admitted.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, the reason for the words was a good one. There might be a reason for admitting cattle, which would not apply to sheep.

MR. GREGORY

thought the word "may" had better remain in the clause. If" shall" was inserted, there might be a difficulty in putting a construction on the words " or any specified kind of animals."

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, the principle of the Bill was that all cattle being imported should be slaughtered, save those coming from a country which was free from disease. Therefore, he thought the word "shall," slight as the change might appear, would be inconsistent with the principle of the Bill, and inconsistent with the discretion which it was intended to give to the Privy Council. Therefore, he thought the Secretary to the Treasury would do far better to adhere to the words of the clause as he presented it.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

confessed he did not see the alarm which some hon. Gentlemen fancied they observed in this word. He said that for this reason. In his clause discretion was absolutely reserved to the Privy Council. Well, all the alteration which the word suggested by the right hon. Gentleman would do was to see when that discretion had been exercised; and the Privy Council were satisfied that all the protection required by that clause was secured, then they should admit the animals. By allowing the word "may" to remain, he admitted that the Privy Council might be absolutely satisfied as to every security from disease; and yet, from mere capriciousness, they might exercise that further discretion which the word would give them, and not admit animals as the House wished. He, of course, must say that he did not believe the Privy Council would so act; he believed they would absolutely construe the word "may" to mean that they should admit cattle if they were satisfied. Therefore, he did not attach the same importance to the alteration as some hon. Gentlemen who had spoken. He believed it was said by some lawyers that if the word "shall" was introduced, the Privy Council would be obliged to admit animals. But he would point out to the Committee that the Privy Council must be satisfied as to security from disease before they admitted animals, so that such an argument would not apply. He did not for a moment attach any importance to this alteration. In the first place, he believed the word "may" would necessarily be interpreted as meaning "must" under the clause; and, therefore, to change it into "shall," would only have the advantage of getting rid of what he believed was a possibility of the Privy Council acting against their own conviction.

Amendment (Mr. W. E. Forster) agreed to.

Now Clause, as amended, agreed to.

MR. PELL

moved, in page 45, at end of Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson's new paragraph, to add, "together with a statement of the reasons of the Privy Council for making the Order." The hon. Gentleman said, his Amendment was one to which he attached considerable importance, and he hoped the Committee would assent to it. While the Privy Council were laying their Orders before Parliament, they might easily give their reasons for making them. And there was a precedent for what he proposed. Two years ago he succeeded, in Committee on the Education Act (1870) Amendment Bill, in obtaining the insertion of a clause for the dissolution of school boards. But the House also provided that, in cases where such dissolution took place, the Privy Council should report to Parliament the reasons for their assenting to such a course being pursued. Having so good a precedent for his present Amendment, he did not think he was proposing too much when he brought it forward. He was sure his proposal would satisfy the country generally, and that it would make the working of the Act easier and more acceptable to the people.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

hoped the hon. Member would not persist with his Amendment. The hon. Member had quoted, as a precedent for the course which he asked the Committee to adopt, the famous debate of some two years ago with reference to the dissolution of school boards. That proposal was made when the House was much farther from completing the Bill than was the case on the present occasion; and he hoped that at this period of the Session a similar debate would not be raised. If it was, the Committee might rely upon it that very great delay would arise in the passing of the Bill. He thought the object of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire would be gained by the instructions given to the Privy Council, who would have to be satisfied that the laws of foreign countries, and the sanitary condition of their cattle, were such as to justify them in relaxing the restrictions. The Privy Council could only come to decisions on evidence laid before them; and he thought the House should have faith in their judgment, and be content with a Report of the decisions at which they had arrived.

MR. MUNDELLA

hoped the Committee was not to be called upon to enter on a discussion similar to that which arose on the school board regulations, which had been referred to. He could not see that anything could reasonably be required beyond a Report from the Privy Council that they were satisfied, after inquiring into all the circumstances, as to the efficiency of the laws and the sanitary condition of the cattle, and, therefore, recommended a relaxation of the restrictions which had existed in reference to the exportation of cattle from those countries. The hon. Member could not surely wish to raise a debate in both Houses of Parliament on each and every occasion when the Privy Council, in the exercise of the discretion vested in them, determined that the restrictions imposed upon particular countries might be relaxed.

MR. GREGORY

could scarcely think that the hon. Member for South Leicestershire wished to have laid on the Table in every case not only the Report of the Privy Council, but the whole of the evidence on which such Report was based. In many cases the evidence would be very voluminous, and the cost of its production great. The Privy Council would be compelled, by their instructions, not to make any Orders until they had carefully examined all the evidence brought before them; and he thought their discretion to make proper and sufficient Orders might be relied upon.

MR. EVANS

hoped that, as the Committee were now rapidly approaching the end of the Bill, his hon. Friend would not persist with his Amendment.

MR. PELL

said, he did not think the reasons which had been urged against his Amendment were sufficiently strong to induce, or to justify, him in giving way. He laid great stress upon the Privy Council having to regard the laws regulating the exportation of cattle from foreign countries, and also the general sanitary condition of the cattle in those countries; but, surely, it would be better for this country to know whenever there was any change in the laws of any foreign country with respect to the exportation of cattle which would give us at home greater security against the importation of disease. This was almost the only point in the Bill upon which he had received numerous letters from breeders in this country, who were interested in the extremely valuable high - bred stock which was to be found in the English counties; and they all agreed with him in thinking that the proposal he had put upon the Paper was an extremely modest and moderate one. He must admit that he had not received much support at present in the Committee, and he did not know whether that ought to influence him to change his views. He hoped some Member of the Committee would be able to give better reasons against his proposals than he had yet heard.

MR. SYNAN

said, that while he approved the proposal of the hon. Member, and should vote for it if it was pressed to a division, he thought it would be unwise to provoke a long discussion on the point; and suggested, for the sake of the Bill as a whole, the withdrawal of the Amendment, which would evidently not receive the support of the Committee.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, the object of the clause as it stood, and of the notice to be given to Parliament, was, that in every instance where a change was made notice should be given to Parliament of the fact, in order that Parliament might, in its discretion, take notice of the change proposed. A case might arise in which an hon. Member might have private information as to the laws or sanitary condition of a country which induced him to disagree with the decision of the Privy Council; and in any such case it would be competent for such Member to call the attention of Parliament to the subject, and to insist upon the production of the evidence on which the decision of the Privy Council was based. He thought his hon. Friend would see that by this means he could attain the object at which his Amendment was aimed.

COLONEL KINGSCOTE

thought the hon. Baronet had adduced a strong argument in favour of the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire. He thought much time and trouble would be saved if the evidence was laid on the Table in the first instance in each case, instead of compelling hon. Members to take the trouble of moving for it.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, that on a previous occasion when this proposal was made he urged that it would be useless to lay these Orders on the Table of the House, because of the difficulty that private Members of the House always found in obtaining opportunities of calling attention to matters of the kind. All that was asked on the present occasion was, that that which was usually given in the Reports of the Veterinary Department should be set forth in the Order which was laid on the Table of the House. The Committee had determined to trust, in a certain degree, to the discretion of the Privy Council; but by requiring the Orders to be laid on the Table, it was clearly meant that the House should consider them. He thought the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire was a perfectly reasonable one; inasmuch as he thought the Reports of the Veterinary Department would be more advantageously laid on the Table of the House while Parliament was sitting and could take cognizance of them, than that their publication should be delayed until the end of the year, when Parliament was not sitting.

MR. CLARE READ

thought it unlikely that any foreign country would protest against being allowed to export their cattle to England. It seemed, however, to be the will of the Privy Council, and of a majority in the Committee, that only the decisions, and not the reasons, should be reported to the House; and, therefore, although he agreed as to the wisdom of his hon. Friend's proposal, he should advise its withdrawal.

MR. PELL

said that, under the circumstances, he should ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. CLARE READ

, who had the following Amendment on the Paper:— In page 45, at end of Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson's new paragraph, add— Provided always, That the Privy Council shall by Order provide that vessels used or employed for the importation of foreign animals from the countries exempted for the time being from the provisions of this Schedule as to slaughter and quarantine, shall not during the three months immediately preceding such use or employment, be used or employed for the importation of animals from any other foreign countries not so exempted; and shall prescribe the ports or parts of ports, not being ports or parts of ports at which animals from other foreign countries are landed, whereat animals from countries so exempted may be landed. The Privy Council shall also, from time to time by Order, designate the particular markets to which alone cattle from countries so exempted may he sent, and shall make provision for marking such cattle, and all other cattle exhibited in the same market, by clipping the hair from the end of the tail, and any person exhibiting cattle so marked in any other market, fair, exhibition, or sale, shall be guilty of an offence against this Act, said, he would not move the first portion of his Amendment, as he was assured the Privy Council would issue some such regulations as he proposed; but he would move that which related to slaughter-markets. His contention was that all foreign cattle coming from the most healthy countries, after undergoing the miseries and privations of a long sea voyage and railway journey, and falling into the lines of great cattle traffic, were liable to contract disease, and should be always regarded with a certain amount of suspicion. He, therefore, contended that if admitted inland these foreign cattle should only go to specified markets, and that they and all the other cattle exhibited in such markets should be marked distinctly, and should not be allowed to be shown in any other market or fair. These cattle should be taken direct to the slaughter-house of the buyer, or if not sold kept in the lairs of the market until the next market day. He knew that this would place a restriction on the movement of more home than foreign cattle; but he did not believe any great harm would result to the owners from such a restriction. Before the Committee of last year he had recommended such a plan for the Metropolitan Market; and Mr. Caird also supported this idea of slaughter-markets. The Committee had recommended that the stock shown in the Islington Market should be killed within the confines of the Metropolis; but the Government had not introduced that recommendation into their Bill. More danger resulted in driving fat cattle from market to market than with so treating store stock. Exertions and privations that would be nothing to a slim, active, young fellow, would be irksome and dangerous to a corpulent old gentleman; so store stock could stand the fatigue of travelling and the exposure in markets better than fat cattle which had been pampered and sheltered from the weather. Moreover, as these foreign cattle came for slaughter, the sooner they were killed the better, and the animals saved the misery, and the community the loss of meat, which resulted from hawking them about from one market to another. There was also this additional danger in allowing fat stock from such great centres as London to be re-marketed. If there was an ill-doing or diseased cow in the Metropolitan or suburban dairies she was sure to be sent to Islington, where the most wretched animal was sure to find a ready buyer. Under his suggestion the Brighton butcher could come to London and buy any cattle he required, and take them to his own slaughter-house; and, although hon. Members laughed at the method of marking which he proposed, he could say the words were taken from an Order in Council, and it was the common practice in the London market. As every market in future would be inspected, he saw no difficulty in carrying out his proposal; but if the Privy Council would intimate their intention to in any way carry out the suggestion, he would willingly withdraw his Resolution in favour of any words which the Secretary to the Treasury, either now or when the Bill was reported, might propose.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, that before his hon. Friend put his proposal on the Paper he had himself considered the point very carefully—in fact, when the Bill was being prepared he endeavoured to draw clauses which would have dealt with what he might call this bonding warehouse system with regard to foreign cattle. At first sight there was a great deal to fascinate him in the idea of giving to the Privy Council power to select certain markets throughout the country to which great freedom might be given in reference to the importation of foreign cattle; but there were a great many things that hinged upon the question. If a market in the heart of the country was selected, they must get over the difficulty of conveying the cattle thither in special trucks; and there were so many other difficulties of detail which presented themselves, that very early in the attempt he had to abandon the undertaking. He could not, therefore, think it possible, at any rate at present, to carry out the suggestion of his hon. Friend.

MR. PELL

said, he could not see the difficulties which had presented themselves to the mind of the Secretary to the Treasury; but, on the whole, he thought it would be as well not to press the Amendment. At the same time, if it had been adopted, he should have thought a better mode of marking beasts could have been adopted than that of depriving them of their whisks.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

, in reference to the speech of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read), reminded the Committee that Mr. Caird's suggestion was made when the proposal in the Bill was for compulsory slaughter at the port of debarkation. He admitted that to fix particular markets for the sale of imported cattle would be to benefit those markets; but he thought it would not be to the advantage of trade generally, in that it would be an unreasonable interference with the freedom of trade. He thought it would be admitted that American and Spanish cattle were probably more healthy than our own; and why on earth should the owners of such animals be compelled to send them to particular markets? He concurred with what had been said by the Secretary to the Treasury, as to the almost insuperable difficulties that would present themselves in the event of an attempt being made to carry out the suggestion of the hon. Member for South Norfolk.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 6 and 7 agreed to.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

moved the following new Third Schedule:—

Pleuro-pneumonia.

"1. Cattle are not to be moved into or out of a place infected with pleuro-pneumonia, except where, as regards movement into such a place, the cattle are affected with pleuro-pneumonia, and except in such other cases as the Privy Council think fit from time to time by general Order to except.

"2. In the cases so excepted by Order, cattle may be moved into or out of an infected place, on conditions prescribed by general or special Order of Council, and not otherwise.

"3. Cattle may be moved into, in or out of such parts of an area infected with pleuro-pneumonia as are not comprised in a place infected "with pleuro-pneumonia, by licence of the local authority, granted on conditions prescribed by general Order of Council, and not otherwise.

"4. Nothing in this Schedule restricts movement of cattle in a place infected with pleuro-pneumonia.

"5. No market, fair, exhibition, or sale of cattle is to be held in an area infected with pleuro-pneumonia, except by licence of the Privy Council, granted for the particular market, fair, exhibition, or sale."

In moving the Schedule he would only remark that, in accordance with what he had previously stated to the Committee, he reserved to himself the power on the Report to eliminate from it sub-section 5, in order to bring it into the form which he then described.

Schedule read a second time, and added to the Bill.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, that what he had just stated in reference to the last Schedule would apply equally to the new Schedule, which he now begged to move—

Foot-and-Mouth Disease.

"1. Animals are not to he moved into or out of a place infected with foot-and-mouth disease, except where, as regards movement into such a place, the animals are affected with foot-and-mouth disease, and except in such other cases as the Privy Council think fit from time to time by general Order to accept.

"2. In the cases so excepted by Order, animals may be moved into or out of an infected place, on conditions prescribed by general or special Order of Council, and not otherwise.

"3. Animals may be moved into, in or out of such parts of an area infected with foot-and-mouth disease, as are not comprised in a place infected with foot-and-mouth disease, by licence of the local authority, granted on conditions prescribed by Order of Council, and not otherwise.

"4. Nothing in this Schedule restricts movement of animals in a place infected with foot-and-mouth disease.

"5. No market, fair, exhibition, or sale of animals is to be held in an area infected with foot-and-mouth disease, except by licence of the Privy Council granted for the particular market, fair, exhibition, or sale."

Schedule read a second time, and added to the Bill.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

remarked, that they had now reached, he was happy to say, the last Amendment to the Bill in Committee, and in moving that Amendment he would only make this general observation—that although many hon. Members might still be opposed to the measure, yet their special objections to it had been met by the Amendments which had been made in it. The Amendment he had to move was the introduction of a new Schedule with regard to the tolls levied at the foreign cattle market at Deptford. It would be in the recollection of the Committee that on the previous night he moved, and afterwards withdrew, an Amendment to the Schedule with regard to the home market at Islington, which was under the control of the Corporation. The case of the two markets, however, was really inseparably connected, because the Corporation would insist upon mixing up the two accounts. He showed, on a former occasion, that the Corporation of London had been given a most singular monopoly of the markets in the Metropolis. They had not only a monopoly of existing markets, but no other person, or body, or local authority, could erect any market within a radius of seven miles; and, therefore, the Corporation were peculiarly bound to Parliament to carry out the enormous powers which it had given them in a reasonable way. Well, the tolls which the City levied in these cattle markets were not considered reasonable by those who were engaged in the trade. Nor did he think they were reasonable in the interests of the consumer, for they did operate as a tax upon meat, and thus pressed upon the consumer. The evidence which was given before the Select Committee of that House which sat last year was very strong in that direction. He would not take up the time of the Committee by referring to it at any length. It was shown that the Corporation were raising an enormous revenue. Those representing the City were asked whether the charges were inserted only as a maximum, and whether it was contemplated that they might be altered? They replied—"Quite so. The Corporation recognize it as the principle on which they conduct the markets. They do not desire to realize a large revenue from their markets; and when they are paid their outlay and interest they contemplate that the tolls should be reduced as the necessities require." The hon. Baronet who had charge of the Bill had said that he thought there already existed a power to alter the tolls. There was at present no such power. He saw that the hon. Baronet nodded assent; and the Committee might take it, therefore, that there was no power under the existing law to reduce these tolls. That being the case, and as they were Parliamentary tolls, he thought he could show that there was fair ground for their reduction. The City authorities contended that the case had not yet arisen which they contemplated in their reply to the question put by the Select Committee. They said that they had not yet been recouped for their outlay, or paid a fair interest for their money. He was aware that their accounts showed that to be the case; but he disputed the soundness of these accounts. They mixed up the case of the Islington Market with that of the Deptford Market, and there had been a very large loss on the former caused by enormous street improvements which the City had made in connection with that Market. If he wanted to go into this matter at length, he might also point out that there was a great deal to be said as to the character of the City administration of the Markets. He thought he could show that the Corporation did not make that use of the Islington Market which they might, or get the return which they might from the tolls which they at present levied. But however that might be, he had before shown that the revenue which they were now getting from their Deptford Market was of a most enormous character. The City said that during the last few years there had been a loss on the whole; but he asked the Committee to put entirely out of sight the case of a few years. They were dealing with matters as they stood, and were likely to be in the future. There was no reason to suppose that the use made of the Deptford Market was likely to fall off. On the contrary, there was every reason to suppose that it was likely to increase. There was no probability that the cattle coming from such countries as Germany, Schleswig-Holstein, and the Netherlands, would be permitted to go through the country. He had before shown that the tolls which were at present levied at Deptford Market gave the Corporation a revenue so large that last year it amounted to £40,000; and he worked out for the Committee the expenses of the Corporation then, and showed that upon that revenue there must have been a profit of £29,000. The City had prepared an answer to that statement, in which they tried to show that their clear profit in the year was only £17,000. But even £17,000 was a very large sum indeed if there was reason to suppose that it was likely to last in years to come. They had not yet got from the Corporation any statement as to what was the nature of their expenses; but he thought that he had made a very fair estimate of those expenses in the figures which he had placed before the Committee. But however that might be, he called the attention of the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury to this point. He was not urging that the hon. Baronet should put the Schedule of tolls which he was about to move into the Act of Parliament, if he found any other way of meeting the case. He stated, on the previous night, that if the hon. Gentleman liked to propose that the Committee should give him power to reduce the existing tolls, he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) should be satisfied with that power, and should not ask the Committee to divide upon the question of statutory tolls being placed in the Bill. He begged to move the following Schedule, to follow Schedule 2:—

Schedule 3.
Maximum Charges for Wharfage, and Market Charges at the Deptford Cattle Market.
s. d.
Beasts, per head 2 6
Calves per head 1 0
Sheep per head 0 4
Pigs per head 0 4
Lairages.
Beasts, per head per night 0 3
Calves per head per night 0 2
Sheep per head per night 0 0¾
Pigs per head per night 0 1
SIR HENEY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, he stated to the Committee on the previous night, after going carefully into this matter, the grounds which led him to believe that the time, at all events, had not arrived when the alteration in the tolls proposed by the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea ought to be adopted. He admitted, however, that he was in error when he stated that he thought a power already existed for the alteration of the tolls; and what he would suggest to the Committee would be, that on the Report he should introduce into Clause 37 of the Bill, a clause which dealt with bye-laws of the local authorities by the Privy Council, a power to the following effect:— The local authorities shall make a yearly Return to the Privy Council of their receipts and expenditure respecting the markets; "— that, he would remark, was already done— and the Privy Council on being satisfied, on inquiry, that the tolls may properly be reduced, regard being had to the expense of the markets and any charges secured on the tolls, and to the other circumstances of the case, may require the local authority to submit for approval a new Schedule of tolls; and, on their failure to do so, may prescribe a new Schedule by Order in Council. That would give the Privy Council all needful power in this matter, and enable them to carry out what he knew the City authorities themselves were anxious to do—namely, that a profit should not be made by them out of the introduction of foreign animals into the country, but that their tolls should practically be so adjusted as really to make their income meet their expenditure. He was not satisfied that such was the case now, or that the reduction would at once take place; but the introduction of such a power as he had suggested into the Bill would get over the difficulty which had been pointed out by the hon. Baronet, and protect the public against large tolls in any case where the circumstances of the case permitted of their being reduced.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

thought that the Secretary to the Treasury had very fairly met the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea. He (Mr. W. E. Forster) did not think it would be quite fair to reduce the charges, from the experience of last year. No doubt, last year showed a very considerable profit; but he was inclined to hope that it might prove to have been an exceptional year, and that it might not be necessary to slaughter so many animals in future years as had been slaughtered last year. The Gentlemen who represented the City could not object to this proposal, as it simply enabled them to be thoroughly heard before the Privy Council; and, in the event of the Privy Council being convinced that they were making a profit, they might take steps to bring down the charges to the point at which it was originally intended they should stand—namely, of not allowing a profit to be made, but of yielding a fair return as interest on the money that had been expended.

MR. CHARLEY

said, he understood the existing tolls to have been fixed by the Privy Council, and the Amendment of the hon. Baronet would be quite contrary to the principle of free trade, and destroy the elasticity which ought to exist in the adjustment of the expenditure and the income of the market. He would just mention one fact in connection with the market, and that was, that since its opening, to the 1st of January last, the amount of expenditure over income had been no less than £80,890.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

I accept the Amendment suggested by the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury.

MR. ALDERMAN COTTON

could assure the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), that anything which the Government thought ought to be done in the interests of the public would be carried out by the Corporation.

SIR ANDREW LUSK

denied that the City of London had practically any monopoly of the markets. ["Oh!"] It was so. They had no more monopoly of the markets than that which they possessed with regard to the maintenance of the streets. It was simply a municipal arrangement for the benefit of the entire community, and it conferred no benefit upon any individual. The arrangement which had now been come to was a sensible and good one, and he entirely approved of it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, "That the Bill, as amended, be reported to the House?"

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, that before the Bill was reported to the House he should like on his own behalf—and he thought he might say also on behalf of the Government—to thank the Committee for the way in which they had assisted the Government in passing this measure. Its importance fully justified the care and attention which the Committee had bestowed upon it. He believed that the result of their labours would be that the Bill would be found to form a substantial addition to the legislation of the country for protecting them from the diseases which had so long devastated their flocks and herds; and, as such, it would realize the expectations that he himself had formed of it—namely, that, instead of being restrictive as against the trade on which this country 'was so dependent, it would increase rather than otherwise that trade by the protection which was given against disease.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 286.]