§ MR. DUCKHAMasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether the Privy Council will undertake to put in force their present powers for the purpose of excluding animals from any Foreign Country in which foot and mouth disease exists during the passing of the Bill to be introduced by the Lord President of the Privy Council for amending the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act of 1878?
§ MR. DODSONThe Privy Council have undertaken to exercise their present powers as stringently as they hold to be consistent with the spirit and intention of the Act of 1878. They have prohibited the landing of animals from Prance on account of the successive cargoes containing disease sent to us at the beginning of the year, and the continuing unsatisfactory condition of the country as to foot-and-mouth disease. They have called the attention of the Governments of the United States, Germany, and Holland to the fact that foot-and-mouth disease has been sent to Great Britain, and have warned them that if they continued to send us disease the landing of their animals would be prohibited. We are prepared to give effect to that warning on the first occasion that calls for it. I wish to add this, that since the month of May—a period of more than eight months—not a single head of foreign cattle with foot-and-mouth disease has been landed upon our shores. Since the 11th of November—that is, a period of very nearly three months—not a single animal of any kind with foot-and-mouth disease has been landed upon our shores; and we do not consider that we could issue a prohibitory Order against any country which has not sent us a case of disease for such a period as that without cause arising.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHAre we to understand that the Government, knowing that foot-and-mouth disease exists in the United States, Germany, and Holland, do not consider that sufficient cause exists to prohibit the importation of live animals from those countries until the disease has been imported into this country?
§ MR. DODSONNo, Sir; and for this reason. The Act of 1878 expressly provides for the slaughtering of animals at the port of landing when they have come from countries which are not clear of disease. It gives a power of prohibition to be used, in exceptional cases, from time to time, as occasion arises.
§ MR. CHAPLINI gather from the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman that he is of opinion that the existing law does not give him the necessary power to carry out the Resolution of last Session, and to prohibit the landing of animals from countries affected with foot-and-mouth disease, wherever they may be, in the manner we have so long demanded.
§ MR. DODSONWe most certainly consider, as I told the hon. Member in debate last Session, that the existing Act does not give us the power to carry out the Resolution which he proposed. That Resolution was not, however, such as he has described.
MR. J. LOWTHERI understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that communications have been addressed to certain Foreign Powers to the effect that, under certain circumstances, Her Majesty's Government would prohibit the importation of animals from those countries. May I ask under what powers he proposes to prohibit such importation?
§ MR. NEWDEGATEBefore the right hon. Gentleman answers that Question, may I be allowed to put another? The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy mentioned that he had warned certain Governments that he apprehended danger on the part of the Government of this country. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, having that information, he has not under the existing law power to prohibit the importation of diseased animals?
§ MR. DODSONIn answer to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. J. Lowther), I have to say that the countries which are prohibited, or which may be prohibited, are prohibited under the special and exceptional powers given to the Privy Council by the 35th section of the Act.
§ MR. JAMES HOWARDI wish to ask the Chancellor of the Duchy, whether I correctly understood him to say that no animals have been landed in England 197 affected with foot-and-mouth disease; or whether he intended to convey to the House that the disease had not escaped from the port of debarkation?
§ MR. DODSONNo, Sir; my statement was that not one single head of foreign cattle affected with foot-and-mouth disease had been landed upon our shores since the month of May, and my further statement was that not a single foreign animal of any kind affected with foot-and-mouth disease had been landed upon our shores since the 11th of November—a period of nearly three months.
§ MR. DUCKHAMDo I understand, from the right hon. Gentleman's reply, that the test of prohibition will be the arrival of cargoes of diseased animals on the shores of this country?
§ MR. DODSONNo, Sir; we could not lay down a hard-and-fast line that the bare fact of the arrival of a cargo should be the test for prohibition, for very obvious reasons. [Cries of "What are they?"]
§ MR. MONTAGUE GUESTMay I ask whether there was not an Order of the Privy Council of the 28th of March prohibiting the landing of diseased cattle from France until the 6th of May, and why such a course should not be used in the case of other countries?
§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDONMay I ask whether there is any limitation of the powers given to the Government by the 35th section of the Act, which is in these words—
For prohibiting the landing of animals in such manner as they think fit?
§ MR. DODSONIn reply to the Question of the hon. Member, I may say that in a similar case to that of France which I stated just now, the Privy Council would feel it their duty to act in the same manner and prohibit the importation. In answer to the Question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman behind me (Sir Alexander Gordon), I would point out that the 35th section must be construed in conjunction with the 5th Schedule of the Act to which it refers. By the 5th Schedule it is distinctly laid down as a general rule that animals from foreign countries are to be landed and slaughtered at the port of debarkation, and the power of prohibiting is an exceptional power in limitation of the general rule.
§ MR. MONTAGUE GUESTCould the right hon. Gentleman inform me 198 why the Order was promulgated by the Privy Council against France?
§ MR. DODSONI am afraid my statement did not reach the hon. Member. In the first Question which I answered I stated the reason why France was prohibited from sending cattle into this country.
An hon. MEMBERMay I ask whether I understood from the right hon. Gentleman's statement that no animals which have arrived since the 1st of May last have been seized with foot-and-mouth disease since they came into this country?
§ MR. DODSONThe animals were all slaughtered at the port of debarkation; and, therefore, the most effectual precautions were taken against their subsequently suffering from the disease.
§ MR. MONTAGUE GUESTI am very sorry to trouble my right hon. Friend; but we at this end of the House would take it as a great favour if he would repeat his answer with respect to France.
§ MR. JAMES HOWARDWe should like to know the reason why the Order was put in force in respect to France, Portugal, and Spain? Was it because the vessels were infected, or because the countries were infected? Two reasons have been assigned, and we should like to know officially why the Privy Council adopted that course.
§ MR. DODSONTo put it very briefly, we prohibited France because of successive cargoes containing the disease coming over at the beginning of the year, and the prohibition has been continued from time to time owing to the unsatisfactory condition of the country.
§ MR. J. W. BARCLAYWould the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to inform the House how many cases have occurred since the 1st of May of any kind of animals arriving in this country affected with foot-and-mouth disease? I understood him to make a distinction between cattle, sheep, and pigs. I understood him to say that no cattle affected with foot-and-mouth disease had arrived in this country since May 1 last, and no animals of any kind since November last. But I gather that between May and November certain animals other than cattle had arrived in this country affected with foot-and-disease.
§ MR. DODSONI cannot state offhand what number of affected animals arrived between May and November; but the two last cargoes were one with 14 swine on October 29, and the other with eight sheep on November 11. Since that date not a single animal affected with foot-and-mouth disease has been landed on our shores.
§ MR. E. H. PAGETMay I ask how many animals were in the ships in which these diseased animals were imported?
§ MR. DODSONI am unable to answer that off-hand.
§ SIR HENRY TYLERMay I ask from what countries they came?
§ MR. DODSONOne from Germany and the other from Holland.
§ MR. HARRINGTONasked if it was the case that in certain districts in Ireland the police were allowed to sell diseased cattle, whereas the farmers were not permitted to do so?
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, he should be much surprised if that was the case.
§ MR. CHAPLINI beg to give Notice that in consequence of the announcement that Her Majesty's Government intend to introduce a Bill in the other House of Parliament to amend the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, I do not intend to proceed with the Amendment of which I had given Notice; but I intend to move the following instead:—
Humbly to assure Her Majesty of the satisfaction with which we have learnt the intention of Her Majesty's Ministers to present to Parliament a Bill to enable them to give effect to a Resolution passed in this House on the 11th July 1883; and humbly to assure Her Majesty that precedence over the measures mentioned in Her Majesty's Gracious Speech from the Throne will he given by us to that Bill when it reaches this House, so as to secure that adequate steps may be taken to prevent the importation into this country of animals suffering from foot and mouth disease without further delay.
§ MR. HENEAGEI wish to ask whether it is not the intention of the Government to press forward the Cattle Diseases Bill with an earnest desire that it should become law as early as possible before Easter, while not delaying the great measures of Reform mentioned in the Queen's Speech?
MR. GLADSTONEMy hon. Friend behind me has spoken entirely on his own responsility; but he has given, I must say, a very fair and just description of the intentions of the Government. It can hardly be supposed that the 200 Government would introduce a Bill for re-organizing the powers of the Privy Council, with regard to which at any time an immediate necessity might arise, although I am not aware that at the present moment the necessity has arisen, without meaning to press it on Parliament. In case any lengthened explanation should he required of me, I will do it in the discussion which the hon. Member has promised us; but undoubtedly our desire is to press forward the Bill with every expedition we can fairly give, it being perfectly well understood that we must entirely decline to give it precedence over all other Business of the House, particularly the two most important measures mentioned in the Queen's Speech.