§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill."—(Mr. Dodson.)
§ MR. KENNYsaid, that an objection had been raised to the clause, on the ground that it did not sufficiently define the powers of the President of the Council. It gave the Privy Council certain powers, and said that the Privy Council might, if they thought fit, exer- 1236 cise them. Now, the Committee knew very well that when powers were given to the Privy Council, and it was left to their discretion to exercise them or not, the Privy Council, as a rule, did not exercise them. This clause would apply to the importation of three-fourths of the cattle which came into this country from other countries, although the other portion might be prohibited. It would mainly affect store cattle brought from the different States of the American Union to England, and it had been already explained that the cattle of all the States bordering on the Atlantic, so far as America was concerned, were practically affected with disease. That being so, it was not sufficiently clear that the disease might not be imported into England, and sent to Ireland and other countries, in consequence of importing diseased cattle from the Western States. He did not wish to protest against the clause at any length, and he had no doubt that it would be carried; but, at the same time, he begged to give Notice that on the Report he intended to move, in line 1, page 2, that the word "may" be expunged, and the words "shall in certain respects" be substituted.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, he entertained a strong objection to the clause, and he thought if the Bill was to be passed at all this clause should be omitted from it. If the Privy Council were to be allowed to admit store cattle, he thought it would be altogether impossible to obtain adequate information as to the state of disease in the countries from which cattle were allowed to be exported. At any rate, he thought it would be difficult to obtain information of a thoroughly reliable nature. They had an illustration of that the other day, with regard to a cargo of cattle from Canada. The cattle were really diseased when landed; they were kept for a few days in a field; and four or five days afterwards, a very large number of them were found to be suffering from foot-and-mouth disease. He thought it was undesirable to allow cattle, purchased for store purposes, to be brought into the country at all, except when they came from localities that were wholly free from disease.
§ MR. CLARE READsaid, he might be allowed to express a hope that his hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Duckham) and hon. Members from 1237 Ireland would allow this clause to stand part of the Bill. For his own part, he would prefer to see it expunged altogether rather than introduced into the Bill, because he believed that it might have a somewhat dangerous effect. But, on the other hand, he did not believe that any large amount of store stock would come into the country if they were subjected to a lengthened quarantine. It was just within the bounds of possibility that some of the best shorthorns would come from the healthy States of America; and his hon. Friend the Member for the County of Hereford might desire to have some breeding animals from those regions. He would, therefore, not oppose the clause.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Clauses 4 to 6, inclusive, severally agreed to.
§ MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he rose to move the insertion of the following new clause:—
§ (Slaughter of animals affected with foot-and-mouth disease.)
§ "When, at any time after the lapse of a period of sixty days, during which no case of foot-and-mouth disease has been reported to the Privy Council (of which the Privy Council shall give due notice), every local authority shall slaughter all animals affected with foot-and-mouth disease whenever the disease appears within its district, and, if the local authority thinks fit, also animals which have been in contact with others affected with foot-and-mouth disease. The compensation for animals slaughtered shall be as follows:—(a.) Where the animal slaughtered was affected with foot-and-mouth disease, the compensation shall be four-fifths of its value immediately before it became affected, but so that the compensation do not in any such case exceed thirty pounds; (b.) In every other case the compensation shall be the value of the animal immediately before it was slaughtered, but so that the compensation do not in any case exceed forty pounds."
§ His object was to prevent the spread of disease. Judging from the action of the majority of the House, it might be supposed that the existence of disease in this country was dependent on its continued introduction from abroad. Such, however, was not the fact. Foot-and-mouth disease was, no doubt, originally imported from abroad; but it travelled very rapidly over the country, and had existed for the last three years, although it could not be said that any disease had been imported in the last 12 months. It, therefore, seemed to him that they ought to adopt some more stringent measure than now existed for the exter- 1238 mination of the disease now prevalent in the country. His own opinion was, that it was quite as important to do that as to make more stringent regulations to prevent the introduction of disease from abroad. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, when he proposed to deal with the disease which still remained in the country, and whether no more stringent measures were to be taken than those which had existed during the last three years? If nothing were done, there was every reason to apprehend that disease would continue in the country, and that it would extend from time to time, and overrun the country. In that view, an attempt to frame regulations for the extermination of disease in the country was even more important than more stringent measures against the introduction of disease from abroad. The regulations of the Privy Council during the last 12 months had been very effectual, and they could not hope for greater security against the importation of disease from abroad than had been enjoyed during that period. But the policy which, it seemed to him, ought to be adopted with foot-and-mouth disease, in the case of a new outbreak, was the immediate slaughter of all animals found affected. The Returns which had been lately laid before the House showed that, on the average, every outbreak of disease affected about 10 animals; and, therefore, a provision of this kind would only involve, in the event of an outbreak, the slaughter of about 10 animals, at a cost of about £50. There was no doubt whatever that, if the animals affected were dealt with the moment disease was manifested, it would be far more economical, and give farmers much greater security and freedom in dealing with their cattle, and in a very short time they would hear very little of foot-and-mouth disease. Under the present system, disease was allowed to spread throughout the country, and then, when it was generally prevalent, regulations of a general character were issued, and proved of comparatively little use. The policy to be adopted, according to his view, was to deal very stringently with the district in which the disease broke out by slaughtering the animals affected, and taking care not to allow the affected area to spread. That policy had been 1239 carried out in Scotland with the best results; and although disease had frequently been introduced into Scotland, care had been taken that it should not be allowed to extend. This was due in a great measure to the action of the local authorities; and he could not help thinking that if the same energetic measures had been taken elsewhere, similar beneficial results would have followed. A great deal of energy had been expended in urging the prohibition of the importation of foreign cattle; but the effect would be to give farmers throughout the country a false security. He was afraid that the same feeling of false security would be engendered by the passing of the present Bill. He was strongly of opinion that the best interests of the farmers would be consulted, and the healthiness of the cattle secured, not only by slaughtering diseased animals at the port of debarkation, but by slaughtering thorn throughout the country. At the present moment it was estimated that there were some 500 diseased animals in England, and these were so many centres for the dissemination of disease. Surely, there was far greater risk of disease being spread from those 500 centres than there could be by the importation of animals under stringent regulations at the port of debarkation. With a view of testing the feeling of the House upon the question, he had placed upon the Paper a new clause, which he now begged to move. His object in moving it was to give the Privy Council power to take energetic measures, and to urge upon local authorities the expediency and necessity of stamping out the disease when it existed within narrow limits. He believed this would be by far the most economical course, and would free the trade from the stringent regulations which the existence of disease necessitated. He begged to move the clause which stood on the Paper in his name.
§ Clause (Slaughter of animals affected with foot-and-mouth disease),—(Mr. J. W. Barclay,)—brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ MR. DODSONsaid, it was necessary that he should say a word or two in regard to the clause proposed by his hon. 1240 Friend the Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay). He hoped his hon. Friend would not think him wanting in courtesy if he refrained from following him into his arguments upon the subject. He desired simply to point out that, under the Act as it stood, the Privy Council had power to order slaughter and compensation in the case of foot-and-mouth disease, and they had lately passed an Order by which the local authorities themselves might, on application, obtain power to slaughter and to compensate. He did not wish to say more upon the subject than that he fully recognized the efficient manner in which many of the counties in England, and most of the counties in Scotland, although not all of them, had exercised the powers entrusted to them by the isolation of disease and by strictly carrying out regulations for keeping down foot-and-mouth disease, and, in some cases, by slaughter. But what he wished to call the attention of his hon. Friend to was this. This was a Bill which dealt with foreign cattle only, and he thought it would be very unfortunate if they should open any door which would raise the vexed question of the laws and regulations affecting cattle at home. Such a step would give rise at once to great difference of opinion; and if they were to embark in such a discussion, he really did not know when they would get out of it. Therefore, with no want of respect towards his hon. Friend, he did not propose to follow his argument in favour of the clause; but he ventured to appeal to him not to press it, or the other clauses of which he had given Notice dealing with domestic regulations.
§ MR. KENNYsaid, he should like to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in reference to the recent Order of the Privy Council.
§ MR. DODSONsaid, they had not yet come to that matter. The present Bill did not apply to domestic regulations, but simply to the importation of foreign animals. When they reached the Amendment of the hon. Member, he should be prepared to accept it.
§ MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he understood the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to say that the Privy Council had, at present, power to order the slaughter of 1241 animals suffering from foot-and-mouth disease, and to compensate the owners. If the right hon. Gentleman would tell the Committee that the Privy Council had the courage of their opinions, and would order the slaughter of diseased animals when the disease got within narrow limits, he should be quite satisfied. But he certainly thought they ought to have some authoritative declaration from the Head of the Agricultural Department as to what was to be the policy of the Privy Council in respect of animals suffering from disease. If the Privy Council would only come to some resolution as to what was the most economical course to adopt, and would give a definite Order, instead of vesting a discretionary power in the local authorities, he thought they would arrive at a satisfactory solution of the difficulties which now surrounded the question. He believed that if disease was allowed to go on smouldering in various districts in England, there would be every reason to fear that it would again break out and extend its ravages. According to his view, there was quite as much necessity for improving the internal regulations as there was for dealing with foreign importation; and he thought if the Privy Council had imposed regulations in a more stringent manner than they had done, they would not have had all this trouble and difficulty with regard to the importation of foreign animals.
§ DR. FARQUHARSONsaid, he thought that it was quite impossible to stamp out this disease simply by the prohibition of importation, because the disease had now become thoroughly established in this country, and was endemic. ["No, no!"] There was abundant evidence to show that it was quite possible for the disease to spring up spontaneously in their midst. ["No, no!"] It was, therefore, requisite to have this power of slaughter, as it was impossible to stamp out the disease by regulations imposed from time to time.
§ MR. CHAPLINsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had exercised a wise discretion, under the circumstances of the case, and for the reasons he had stated, in appealing to the hon. Member opposite (Mr. J. W. Barclay) not to press his Amendment on that occasion. At the same time, he (Mr. Chaplin) thought the hon. Member was perfectly 1242 justified, and more than justified, in the appeal he had made to the right hon. Gentleman, as the Head of the Agricultural Department, to exercise more energy in future in using the powers of slaughter which the Privy Council possessed when foot-and-mouth disease was reduced to narrow limits throughout the country, or whenever it might break out in any particular district. He (Mr. Chaplin) himself had frequently advocated this method of dealing with foot-and-mouth disease when it broke out; but he would not, under any circumstances, have supported the clause of the hon. Member in its present form, because, although it proposed that compensation should be given, yet that compensation was, in all cases, limited to such a comparatively small sum, that he need hardly point out to the Committee, in the case of a valuable herd of shorthorns, if the clause were to be enforced, the loss inflicted upon owners would be ruinous. Under the circumstances, he hoped the hon. Member would accede to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman, with the understanding that, in future, the Privy Council would exercise their powers in regard to slaughter more stringently than they had hitherto done.
§ MR. DUCKHAMsaid, he was surprised at the remarks which had been made by his hon. Friend the Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay). His hon. Friend appeared to forget altogether that Scotland had hitherto been an isolated country. His hon. Friend took great credit to Scotland for stamping out disease; but he (Mr. Duckham) would tell his hon. Friend that if Scotland had been as open to disease as England, the farmers of that country would have suffered quite as severely as the English farmers had done. The herds of England had been open to infection from Ireland, Scotland, and foreign countries; but not so Scotland. His hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire (Dr. Farquharson) seemed to consider that the disease had become acclimatized, and that it sprung up spontaneously. That was altogether contrary to the facts of the case. Every day's experience had proved that that was not so. For three years Ireland had been free from disease Ireland had suffered for many years from it; but it had been altogether free until the disease was taken over there last year. Scotland had been free for four years, 1243 and remained free until the disease was, taken over last February 12 months, His (Mr. Duckham's) own county had been free for six years, with the exception of a few traceable outbreaks, and yet no county had suffered more than it, had done formerly. Every time the disease was introduced the herds were isolated, a strict cordon established, and the disease; had not spread. In other counties in England it had been dealt with in the same manner; and it was monstrous to endeavour to persuade the House, and to send it forth to the world, that foot-and-mouth disease sprung spontaneously from the soil of this country. Such an assertion was not borne out by the facts of the case. As regarded slaughter, it might be very well for the hon. Member, who had possibly nothing more on his farm than animals of the ordinary market value; but when they came to deal with valuable animals for breeding purposes, such as the shorthorns alluded to by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), or as in his (Mr. Duckham's) county, Herefordshire, when there were many farmers who had any valuable herds of Herefords who would strongly object to the slaughter of their herds. It was, therefore, necessary that there should be a discretionary power in the hands of the Privy Council. He quite agreed with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that it would be better to confine the present Bill to the importation of foreign animals, and let them have improved regulations, if necessary, for their internal arrangements quite independent of the present Bill.
§ MR. CLARE READsaid, he was very glad, indeed, to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster say that the Privy Council had ample powers for stamping out the disease if it should be again imported. He did trust that, if they succeeded in getting rid of the present long-continued outbreak, and the country became entirely freed from disease, if from any accident, after the passing of this Bill, it should be again introduced, the Privy Council would exercise their powers of slaughter with more promptitude than they did in 1880.
§ MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he had only a word or two to say in reference to the statement of his hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Duckham). His hon. Friend seemed to think that 1244 the action of the local authorities had very little effect in preventing the spread of disease. Now, there had been in Forfarshire 80 outbreaks during the last eight or nine months, but, thanks to the local authority, the disease had not spread; and if local authorities had dealt with outbreaks as energetically as the local authority of Forfarshire had, he thought they would have been equally successful. He would remind his hon. Friend that valuable breeding animals were not exclusively owned by English farmers. There was, proportionately, a larger breeding stock in Scotland. He had made this appeal to the House on behalf of the purchasers of store cattle, who, at the present time, were put to very great straits to procure feeding stock.
§ Question put, and negatived.
THE CHAIRMANasked if the hon. Member (Mr. J. W. Barclay) proposed to proceed with the other clauses which stood in his name upon the Paper?
§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY, in rising to move the following new clause:—
§ Local authorities in counties in England.
§ (Alteration of the local authority for counties in England.)
§ "So much of the Second Schedule of 'The Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1878,' as defines the local authorities in counties, except within the Metropolis, is hereby repealed, and, instead thereof, the persons appointed by this section shall be such local authority.
- "(1.) The justices of the peace in every county shall meet and nominate not fewer than four, or more than fifteen, of their number to act on the county board for the purposes of this Act, and shall intimate to the lord lieutenant of the county and the chairman of quarter sessions the number and names of the persons so appointed.
- "(2.) The clerk of the peace in each county shall call a meeting of the occupiers of agricultural subjects in the county valued in the valuation roll in force for the time at one hundred pounds and upwards. The meeting shall be called by advertisement in one or more newspapers circulating in the county for the same day as, or for a day not later than eight days after, the meeting of the justices. The advertisement shall specify the time and place of such meeting, and the clerk of the peace shall be clerk to such mooting. The meeting shall nominate from among such occupiers a number of persons equal to those nominated by the justice of the peace, and the meeting shall also name a convener, who shall intimate the names of the persons so nominated to the chairman of quarter sessions, and shall have power to call similar meetings by such advertisement when occasion shall require. In the event of such election not being intimated to the chairman of quarter sessions within fifteen days from the
1245 date of such meeting, it shall he lawful to the lord lieutenant to nominate from among such occupiers such number of persons, and intimate the same to the chairman of quarter sessions. - "(3.) A local authority may, if they think fit, determine that a certain number of their members, not exceeding one-third thereof, shall retire periodically, at intervals of not less than three years, the members so retiring being re-eligible; and the local authority may lay down such rules as they think fit to regulate the time and manner of such retirement.
- "(4.) Vacancies from time to time happening by retirement, death, resignation, or otherwise, among the members of the local authority shall be filled up by the authority, and in the manner by and in which the members vacating office were respectively nominated.
- "(5.) The persons nominated as in this section provided, and the lord lieutenant of the county, and the chairman of quarter sessions, for the time being shall constitute the local authority.
- "(6.) As far as not otherwise provided by this Act, such local authority shall have all the powers conferred on the local authority by this Act, and shall have power to elect a chairman, specify a quorum, and make all regulations necessary for carrying the purposes of this Act into effect.
- "(7.) The chairman of the local authority, and in default of him the chairman of quarter sessions, and in default of him any three members of the local authority, may at any time call a meeting of the local authority to be held at such time and place as he or they may fix, and the local authority may adjourn as they from time to time think fit,"
§ Clause (Alteration of the local authority for counties in England),—(Mr. J, W. Barclay,)—brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ MR. DODSONsaid, he could not agree to the introduction of the clause into the Bill. The system described by 1246 the hon. Member (Mr. J. W. Barclay), although, no doubt, admirably adapted to the situation in Scotland, was not adapted to the circumstances of the English counties. Moreover, some of the powers proposed in the clause were already existent.
§ MR. HASTINGSsaid, he must enter his protest against this attempt to sweep away the local authorities in English counties. It seemed to be thought that there were no representatives of the tenant farmers on the present Local Board; but he (Mr. Hastings) was in a position to give that the most complete contradiction. He was himself Chairman of one Board, one-half of which was composed of tenant farmers; they were nominated by the Council of the Chamber of Agriculture, and were both interested in and acquainted with the breeding of stock. He knew the case was the same in Herefordshire, and, he believed, in Norfolk; and he thought his hon. Friend near him, who could speak with some authority on the point, would agree that the occupiers were in a majority, and that they were elected by the Board of Guardians throughout the country. He was, therefore, at a loss to understand what could be the meaning of the insinuation that the tenant farmers were entirely unrepresented. He gave every credit to the Scotch authorities for the admirable way in which they had administered the law, although he was bound to say that hon. Gentlemen from Scotland would do much better by attending to Scotch Business, than by endeavouring to administer English affairs.
§ MR. JAMES HOWARDsaid, he wished to point out, in justice to the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay), that the hon. Gentleman, in matters of this kind, knew as much or more of what were the practices in some English counties than the hon. Member who had just spoken. In many counties, especially in the North of England, Magistrates kept entirely in their own hands the administration of the Acts, much to the dissatisfaction of the farmers. It was in consequence of representations made to him by influential farmers, that his hon. Friend had been induced to place these Amendments on the Paper.
§ MR. DUCKHAMsaid, he thought it very desirable that a change should take place in the constitution of local authorities, a very small proportion of 1247 whom took any interest in agricultural affairs. In his opinion, the local authorities for boroughs should act, in this matter, in consonance with the county local authorities. In proof of the necessity for that assimilation, he would mention that, a short time ago, the local authority of his county refused to grant a licence for some cattle to be brought into the county from Lancashire. The person concerned then went to the Town Clerk of the City of Hereford, who, not knowing that the county authority had refused the application, gave him the licence, which was signed by the Mayor and another magistrate. The consequence was, that a lot of diseased calves were brought into the county, and about 90 animals became infected. That he considered to be a strong argument in favour of such a clause as that proposed by the hon. Member for Forfarshire.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, he had no interest in the question as between England and Scotland; but, as an Irish Member, he protested against the venomous attack made by the hon. Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Hastings) upon the hon. Member who had moved the second reading of the clause before the Committee (Mr. J. W. Barclay). That hon. Member was condemned, because, being a Scotchman, he had brought forward an Amendment with the object of benefiting Englishmen—a strange comment upon the principle laid down to Members on that side of the House, that this was an United Kingdom, and that England, Scotland, and Ireland were mutually concerned with the welfare of the Three Kingdoms. The action of the hon. Member for Forfarshire had, in his opinion, been fully justified in the few remarks of the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. James Howard). It appeared to him that, in some counties in England, the affairs of the localities were conducted entirely by the magistrates, and that the farmers had no representation whatever; and he held that the control of the affairs of the farmers by a body of persons nominated by the Crown was a state of affairs grievous in itself, and which ought not to be allowed to continue. The hon. Member for Forfarshire had, as a Scotchman, in his opinion, as good a right to interfere in English affairs as Englishmen had to interfere in the affairs of 1248 Ireland; and if he went to a Division, he should be glad to vote with him.
§ MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he had been asked by a number of English farmers to bring the subject before the Committee, and, having done so, he begged to withdraw the clause.
§ Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY, in moving the insertion of the following clause:—
Joint Committees of local authorities. (Local Authorities may unite.)Two or more local authorities may agree to appoint a joint committee or joint committees, and the provisions of the Sixth Schedule of 'The Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1878,' shall have effect with respect to such joint committee or joint committees,said, he would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to accept the clause. It would be found that a great many complaints were made with regard to conflicting orders and regulations of local authorities within a small area, and it was thought desirable that those regulations should be consolidated. There were, no doubt, difficulties in the way of consolidating local authorities in this Bill; but he thought that, if powers were given for local authorities to agree, it would be of great advantage. There were cases where two or three counties might combine and allow cattle within their combined area to be moved without any restriction whatever; and it was proposed by his clause, to allow the appointment of a joint committee, which could frame regulations for the combined district. He begged to move the insertion of the clause.
§ Clause (Local authorities may unite), —(Mr. J. W. Barclay,)—brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this Clause be read a second time."
§ MR. DODSONsaid, he quite agreed with the hon. Member that, in many cases, it would be of great advantage if the regulations of the local authorities could be consolidated; but the question was a large one, and it would require much consideration before it could be dealt with. Under the circumstances, he was unable to accept the clause of his hon. Friend.
§ Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
1249§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY moved the insertion of the following clause:—
§ (Additional power to Privy Council.)
§ "In addition to the powers conferred on the Privy Council by 'The Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1878,' the Privy Council may make such orders as they think fit for prohibiting the conveyance of animals, by any vessel, to or from any port in the United Kingdom, for such time as they may consider expedient."
§ Clause (Additional power to Privy Council,)—(Mr. J. W. Barclay,) — brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ MR. DODSONsaid, he was prepared to accept the clause.
§ MR. PERCY WYNDHAMsaid, he could not help expressing surprise that the clause should be accepted by the Government; because he had distinctly understood that the operation of the Act would be limited to foreign cattle. He objected to the substitution of a hard-and-fast rule for those Orders in Council, under which they had the initiative power of stopping cattle coming from Ireland, when there was reason to believe they were in a diseased state. Without wishing to put any blame on the Privy Council, he was bound to say that they could not be got to work quick enough to answer the end desired, so far as his part of the country was concerned. When a district of Ireland was infected with disease some days elapsed before they heard of it, and further time was necessary to ascertain the truth, and then some weeks passed before an Order stopping the transit of cattle from Ireland could be put in force, by which time the whole of the North of England might be influenced by the disease. As early as last November the Privy Council, acting under very strong pressure, put upon them by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, who had, no doubt, a strong pressure put upon him, issued a letter to the local authorities, the object of which was nothing else than to urge upon them to withdraw their restrictions. The letter was taken into consideration, the authorities in the County of Northumberland gave way, and accepted some cattle which had passed through places where there was disease, and three weeks afterwards they received a letter from the Privy Council to say that they had acted contrary to their instructions. The truth was that in the part 1250 of England which he had the honour to represent they were more desirous of keeping their cattle free from disease than they were to have Irish cattle brought in. At present they were working harmoniously with the Irish authorities. It was shown that the ports of Belfast, Londonderry, and Dublin were in a most satisfactory condition, and that every effort was made there to carry out the Act; but they found, notwithstanding that, unless they exercised their own supervision, they were not safe from disease. Under the circumstances, he was opposed to the clause of the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay).
§ MR. KENNYsaid, he failed to perceive the relevancy of the remarks of the hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. Percy Wyndham) to the clause before the Committee. As he (Mr. Kenny) understood the clause, it proposed to give power to the Privy Council to put certain ships in quarantine, the effect of which would be to prevent healthy cattle from abroad becoming infected with foot-and-mouth disease on board ship. It was well known that animals which, when embarked, were in a perfectly healthy condition, had been found to be diseased on disembarkation. There were strong reasons for this power being given to the Privy Council, the disease being of a very insidious character, and the process of infection being but imperfectly understood. It had been stated, at the Chicago Convention, that on two occasions foot-and-mouth disease had been imported into America by cattle which had contracted the disease on board ship. It was also said that cattle brought from Ireland, and landed at Bristol, were infected with foot-and-mouth disease; but there was evidence to prove that at the time these cattle left Ireland they were sound, so that it was obvious that bad, insanitary vessels were used for the conveyance of animals from Ireland. The Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway County (Colonel Nolan) had for its object the complete and thorough disinfection of these vessels in order, in the first place, to save the Irish cattle raisers from the imputation of sending over diseased animals to England, and, at the same time, to save English farmers from the consequences of receiving infected cattle. 1251 He failed to see that the objection of the hon. Member for West Cumberland (Mr. P. Wyndham) was a real objection to the clause; and he should like to see the clause of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway accepted in place of the one under notice, because it appeared to him (Mr. Kenny) to make the matter more plain. The clause in the name of the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) was not correctly worded, and he would point out the exception he took to it. In the first place, the hon. Member's clause said that the Privy Council might make such Orders as they thought fit for prohibiting the conveyance by any vessel, to or from any port in the United Kingdom, for such time as they might consider expedient. He (Mr. Kenny) thought the time should be defined, in such a manner, for instance, as was proposed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway — namely, that the limit should be three months. The hon. Member for Forfarshire, moreover, did not make it clear that this clause referred more to animals than to vessels—there was a doubt as to whether its main application was to vessels or animals; therefore, it would be advisable to recast the clause, for the purpose of making it more clear. Then, as to the definition of the "Privy Council," he would like to know whether it would mean the Privy Council in Ireland, as well as in England, or only the English Privy Council? If the clause were rendered more clear in these respects, he should give it a very warm support.
§ MR. DODSONsaid, that the hon. Member who had just spoken (Mr. Kenny) correctly comprehended the clause, as he (Mr. Dodson) understood it. The clause would give power to the Privy Council which it did not at present possess, power to order a ship to suspend the conveyance of animals, in order to secure freedom from infection. Incidentally, this clause embraced all the ground covered by the clause of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan). It was in the power of the Privy Council to suspend the conveyance of animals by any vessel in any part of the United Kingdom. The clause would apply to the Irish Privy Council under the 5th section of the Bill, which rendered the 1252 measure applicable, mutatis mutandis, to Ireland.
§ MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, there was one single word required in the clause to make its meaning absolutely clear. It should run, "prohibiting the conveyance of animals by any specified vessel." If that word "specified" were put in, it would have the effect of making clear the intention of the clause, and of preventing the possibility of any dispute as to the phraseology. He begged to move the insertion of the word "specified."
§ Amendment proposed, in line 3, after the word "any," to insert the word "specified."—(Mr. R. H. Paget.)
§ Question, "That the word 'specified' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
§ Question, "That the Clause, as amended, be read a second time," put, and agreed to.
§ BARON HENRY DE WORMS, who had given Notice to move the insertion of the following Clause:—
§ (Act not to apply to Deptford Market.)
§ "This Act shall not apply to Deptford Cattle Market, or to the importation of cattle thereto,"
§ said, he did not intend to take up the time of the Committee for more than a few minutes; but he wished to say that when he put the Notice on the Paper the measure was essentially a prohibitive one. Now, however, owing to the modifications which had been introduced by the Government, the necessity for his moving the clause had been obviated. The constituency he represented was interested in the largest cattle market in the country, where every possible precaution was taken to prevent the importation and spread of cattle disease. Probably, hon. Members were not aware of the enormous extent of the importations into Deptford Market. From statistics with which he had been furnished, it appeared that from July, 1883, to December of the same year, 402,900 animals had been imported there; and of these the only animals affected with foot-and-mouth disease were eight sheep. From January to April, 1884, 246,000 animals had been imported, not one of which was infected with the disease; so that out of a total of 648,900 animals brought into Deptford from July, 1883, to April, 1884, only eight sheep had been affected with foot-and-mouth disease. He did not wish to give any further statistics on this subject, and only 1253 desired to point out that, so far as Deptford Market was concerned, everything that possibly could be done was done to prevent the spread of infection.
§ MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, the hon. Member for Greenwich had shown a noble devotion to the interests of his constituents; but the Committee could not go all round the cattle markets of the United Kingdom. He hoped the hon. Member would not move his Amendment.
§ BARON HENRY DE WORMSI do not propose to move it.
§ (Cattle brought from Ireland.)
§ "On and after the passing of this Act, no local authority in Great Britain shall prohibit the landing, or stop in transit, healthy cattle brought from Ireland to Great Britain, unless such local authority shall have obtained from the Privy Council an order authorising them to do so."
§ The object with which he had put the clause on the Paper had been to elicit an expression of opinion from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, as representing the Agricultural Department, as to the manner in which local authorities had been dealing with cattle brought from Ireland. He did not propose to go into the matter at any great length; but he would point out that, under the Act of 1878, the Privy Council were supposed to be responsible for the Orders issued or made by the local authorities; and it was not until he had put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman in the House, that he had ascertained that the local authorities made these Orders in regard to cattle brought from Ireland. He thought it was entirely ultra vires, so far as the local authorities were concerned, that they should have excluded these cattle, or make Orders prohibiting the landing of cattle brought from Ireland, or in any way prevent fat cattle being brought across the Channel to the English markets. The Newcastle Market had been closed to Irish fat cattle for many months, though the Northumberland ports had been opened for some time to Irish store cattle. There was not the slightest chance of infection from Irish cattle, and yet they had been excluded to benefit the foreign cattle dealers, or Continental cattle raisers, who were 1254 sending animals to the English markets. Irish cattle were excluded not only to the benefit of these people, but to the detriment of the meat-consuming population of the great centres of England. The right hon. Gentleman had just admitted, to a certain extent, the grievance of which he complained, and had given a promise to deal with it by an Order in Council. He should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether such Order in Council had been prepared; and, if so, what were the terms of it, and how soon was it proposed to issue it? If he (Mr. Kenny) considered, when he heard the terms of the Order in Council, that they would meet the case, he would not press his Amendment.
§ Clause (Cattle brought from Ireland,)—(Mr. Kenny,)—brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, the local authorities in Scotland and, he presumed, also in England, would object emphatically to any curtailment of their power of excluding cattle from those places where disease existed. He would point out that the farmers of Scotland were as anxious to have store cattle from Ireland, as Irish farmers were to send them to Scotland; but they wished to have effectual methods of dealing with disease. It had been clearly proved that, through bringing cattle from Ireland to the Clyde, the landing places and the vessels had become so affected that, without any blame to the Irish dealers, great loss accrued to those who bought the Irish cattle. The Scotch authorities had been so anxious to get clear of disease that they had prohibited the importation for a time, and thereby put pressure on the authorities on the Clyde. They desired to have a clean route, and directly that was accomplished the restriction would be withdrawn. The interests of the Scotch and English local authorities and farmers were identical with those of the Irish local authorities and farmers; and they were prepared to admit their cattle as soon as they could do so with safety. The disease which had broken out amongst Irish cattle was a great loss to 1255 the dealers and importers; and, therefore, the policy which had been pursued, inconvenient as it was to farmers in England and Scotland as well as to farmers in Ireland, would prove beneficial to both parties.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, he considered that the primary object his hon. Friend (Mr. Kenny) had in view in moving this clause was to bring about regularity in the proceedings of the local authorities. As the matter stood at present, the local authorities thought for themselves, and that brought about a great amount of irregularity. The rules were very stringent in some places, and lax in others; and the question was, whether it would not be desirable that there should be some central directing Body for collecting information from all quarters, and for making rules to apply to all places? If it were considered wise to do that, the object could be effected by accepting the new clause proposed by his hon. Friend. If the rules were to be stringent, let them be stringent everywhere.
§ MR. DODSONsaid, that, in the first place, this new clause, from one point of view of the hon. Member (Mr. Kenny) himself, was unnecessary. No local authority had power to stop healthy animals in transit; and, in the next place, the clause, if adopted, would not secure that uniformity which it was the object of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) to bring about. It proposed that a local authority should not be able to stop cattle coming from Ireland, unless they had obtained power from the Privy Council to do so. Having, however, obtained that power, they could use it as they pleased. Under existing regulations, any local authority in Great Britain possessed power to exclude animals from the district of any other local authority in the United Kingdom. This was no exceptional power against Irish cattle, and he appealed to the Members of the Committee not to press the consideration of the clause.
§ MR. KENNYsaid, his proposal referred in the main to Irish fat cattle more than store cattle; and his complaint was that the local authorities had power to prevent such cattle from being brought into English markets. Irish fat cattle had, for a long period, been excluded from the Glasgow and the 1256 Newcastle-on-Tyne Markets, although, owing to the recent action of the House, those markets might be opened now. His complaint was that, in some places where the local authority might be guided by a Veterinary Inspector, Irish fat cattle might be excluded by that one person. He wished to have an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster with regard to this Order in Council. It was an important matter, and it was not only important to the Irish cattle dealer, but to the population of England. He wished to know what were the terms of the Order?
§ MR. DODSONsaid, he could not give the terms, because they were not yet drawn up; but what he had said was, that the Privy Council had it in contemplation to issue an Order so as to limit the power of local authorities to prohibit the introduction of animals into their districts from parts of the United Kingdom which were free from, or without a suspicion of, disease; but the matter had not yet gone further, and was, for the present, in abeyance.
§ MR. KENNYsaid, that, at the same time, the right hon. Gentleman had promised that he would make an inquiry into some reported outbreak. He had not yet told them what was the real state of the facts.
§ MR. DODSONsaid, there had been an alarm that animals infected with foot-and-mouth disease had been brought over to Bristol; but, on inquiry, it proved that the animals were sound.
§ MR. KENNYsaid, that, under the circumstances, and according to the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, the matter virtually amounted to this—that, in regard to every district which was free from foot-and-mouth disease, the local authorities would be prevented from prohibiting the importation; and, therefore, he (Mr. Kenny) did not see the necessity of persevering.
§ MR. DODSONsaid, he should be very much obliged if the hon. Gentleman would not press the clause; but he could not accept the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of what he had just said.
§ MR. CLARE READhoped that, in the Order in Council which the right hon. Gentleman was contemplating, he would set forth not only the places from which the cattle were to come, but the 1257 line of transit over which they would have to pass.
§ Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD moved the insertion of the following new clause:—
§ (Duration of obligatory powers of Privy Council.)
§ "So much of this Act as makes it obligatory on the Privy Council to prohibit, in the circumstances in this Act mentioned, the landing of animals affected with foot-and-mouth disease, shall continue in force until the expiration of two years from the date of the passing of this Act, and no longer."
§ He said he would not, at that late hour of the night, occupy the attention of the Committee for many minutes. He might claim some indulgence for the position in which he and others stood in reference to this clause. It was born in the highest circles of nobility—it was proposed by Lord Carlingford in "another place;" and when it was turned out, the noble Lord delivered it to his Colleagues that it should be adopted by this House; but its unnatural parent, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, had cast it off, and it had fallen into low society below the Gangway. He would endeavour to state, in one sentence, why he thought the Bill should be passed only for a period of two years. There had been laid before the Committee by his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair) a scientific argument which was absolutely conclusive that this Bill should only be a temporary measure, even from the point of view of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Again, accepting their views, he (Mr. Arthur Arnold) would argue that the Bill should only be a temporary measure. Assuming the measure to be one of the utmost importance, he would ask those hon. Gentlemen whether they desired that there should be a permanent Statute placed among the laws of the country which related only to one disease which, in their opinion, a few years ago, was so unimportant that they considered that slaughtering at the port of landing was a quite sufficient defence against it? From his own point of view, and from the point of view of those whom he hoped to have the good fortune to meet in the Lobby, he would say that this Bill was perfectly useless, because it did not add one iota to the legal powers of 1258 the Privy Council, although it contained an invitation to them to use the powers they already possessed. It did not add one jot, or tittle, or atom to their powers in regard to the prevention of the spread of infectious disease. He thought it was very undesirable at any time to add a law to the Statute Book of which such a thing as that could be said, and for the reason he had already suggested—namely, because it had been thought important by Her Majesty's Government in the first instance, he would, he might say, on their behalf, propose that the Bill should only be passed for a period of two years.
§ Clause (Duration of obligatory powers of Privy Council,)—(Mr. Arthur Arnold,) —brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ COLONEL KINGSCOTEsaid, he would be as brief as he could; but he felt that it would be most unwise if the Committee were to put any such limitation on the duration of the Act as was now proposed; indeed, such a course would render nugatory all that the Bill proposed to do. He had fought for this Bill for two reasons; one being, to give cattle breeders in this country such protection as could be given to them. To tell him that the agricultural interest would put their cattle into breeding, if this Bill were only to be passed for a limited time, was absurd. They would do nothing of the kind; and for this reason alone, if for no other, he should oppose this. Again, how would foreign countries be induced to take steps to keep disease out of their own country, if they knew that this Bill was to last for only two years? He would not detain the Committee longer; but he should give his strongest opposition to this clause, for he felt sure that it would render nugatory all that the Bill would do if this or similar Amendments were passed.
§ MR. CHAPLINsaid, that if the statement of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) were true, that this Bill was wholly superfluous and unnecessary, and did not add one tittle to the powers already possessed by the Privy Council, why was it that he and his Friends had offered so formidable an opposition to the measure? He 1259 (Mr. Chaplin) certainly trusted that the Committee would not accept the clause which the hon. Gentleman had proposed; for he could not conceive anything more calculated to render absolutely nugatory all the prolonged discussions and efforts which, they had made to bring the measure to a successful conclusion. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Kingscote) had pointed out, with great force, that one of the principal sources to which we had to look to supply any deficiency in the food of the people would be curtailed if this clause should be unfortunately inserted. If such a clause were passed, it would be impossible to expect those farmers who were breeders to embark the capital necessary for any increased production of cattle, if the security which was to be given to them was only to be continued for two years. An increased production must necessarily be a matter of years' duration. Then, in regard to the other source from which we were to look for an importation of dead meat, could we look with any hopeful prospect to that in the face of such a clause as the one now proposed? Was it not perfectly obvious that in order to create a dead meat trade on anything like a large and permanent basis, we must give foreign countries some assurance that there would be something of a permanent nature and character in this measure? How otherwise could we expect them to embark in the trade? Hon. Gentlemen had constantly told them that when the prohibition of live animals had been insisted on before there had been no corresponding increase in the dead meat trade. No doubt, that was perfectly true, for the very reason he had stated, that it was impossible to expect people to embark in such a trade when they were totally uncertain as to whether the importation of live animals, whether diseased or not, would be permitted again in the course of a few months. He would conclude, as he had begun, by again expressing an earnest hope that the Committee would not deprive the Bill of its main value by accepting the clause proposed by the hon. Member; for he believed, in the interest of the meat consumers, that nothing more disastrous could be passed by the Committee.
§ MR. DODSONsaid, he hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. Arthur Arnold) would not think it necessary to put the Com- 1260 mittee to the trouble of a Division. It was true, as had been stated by the hon. Gentleman, that the clause was in the Bill as it was originally introduced; but one of the Amendments made in the House of Lords was that this clause should not be retained. They had, however, now arrived at an arrangement whereby the 1st clause of the Bill had been, in great measure, restored to its original scope, although not in the form he had desired; and, under the circumstances, he thought it unnecessary to ask for the re-introduction of the clause now proposed. With regard to this clause, the more he considered it, the less consequence it appeared to him to possess. He did not attach to it the importance which either the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) or the hon. and gallant Member for West Gloucestershire (Colonel Kingscote) attached to it. Nor did he attach to it the importance which the hon. Member for Salford appeared to do. In point of fact, the clause appeared to him to be really superfluous; because, if the 1st clause of the Bill, which was its essence, worked well, whatever might be the limit which Parliament imposed, the Act would be continued; whereas, on the other hand, if it did not work well, they might have a proposal to repeal it, not only at the end of two years, but at the end of one year, or even sooner. Therefore he thought it was not worth while to detain the Committee by any long argument; and he hoped the hon. Member for Salford would be satisfied by making his protest, and would not divide the Committee.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTER, said, he was not going to detain the Committee at that late hour. If his hon. Friend (Mr. Arthur Arnold) went to a Division he should support him, and mainly upon this ground—that he believed it would be found almost impossible to keep up the restrictions in regard to this Bill, which would be the only excuse or ground upon which they ought to have such very stringent legislation with regard to foreign parts. He believed there would not be a feeling among the farmers themselves to keep up the restrictions. Under these circumstances, it was a fair and reasonable thing to make the Bill a temporary measure. He did not know that two years should be the exact time fixed; but it should be a temporary 1261 Act. This was a point on which his hon. Friend, doubtless, felt strongly, and those who supported him felt strongly also.
§ MR. BROADHURSTsaid, he would occupy the attention of the Committee for but a few moments. He was taken rather severely to task by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) the other day for something he had said during the discussion on this subject. He wished now to point out, in justification of some of the remarks which he then made, that the speeches which had just been delivered by the hon. and gallant Member for West Gloucestershire (Colonel Kingscote) and the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) showed that he was entirely right in his contention. Those hon. Gentlemen, who were not within sight of their haven, had pointed out that unless this was made a permanent Act it would be impossible for cattle breeders in this country to commence and keep up large breeding establishments. If that were so, that was the best of all affirmative replies to the question between them and him. Those hon. Gentlemen had clearly pointed out by their arguments that they looked upon this Bill as an encouragement to what they would, like, he supposed, to call home industries. ["No, no!"] An hon. Member opposite dissented; but he had told them that if this Bill were only to last two years it would be impossible to develop home breeding in our own country, and that disease would come back to us. But this Bill would not keep out disease. The disease, according to all the best authorities, quoted by these hon. Gentlemen, was created in our own dirty farm yards. ["No, no!"] At any rate, there was no evidence of the importation of this disease; and, therefore, no necessity for the permanency of this proposed Act. He opposed that permanency on other grounds besides this. If he could have an assurance that the present Government would remain for ever in Office—a thing they would all desire— ["No, no!"]—he meant that all patriotic men would desire, all well-wishers of their country—well, then he should have no objection whatever to the permanency of the law. But it was possible that there might be a change of Government; and he could not look upon the result, so far as this Bill was con- 1262 cerned, without the most profound concern. The bare possibility was enough to make him distrust the measure. If the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Chaplin) were to be found taking his seat on the Treasury Bench, he (Mr. Broadhurst) would like to know what the interpretation of this Bill would be in his hands? He looked upon the Bill as a vicious piece of legislation; and, therefore, he hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. Arthur Arnold) would take a Division on the question, and that it would be, as it ought to be, a good Division.
§ MR. FINCH-HATTONsaid, he only rose in consequence of what had been said by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst), who had been very unfair to the hon. Gentleman who preceded him. It was perfectly evident that unless time was given for the development of cattle breeding at home, and the dead meat trade from abroad, a largely increased and cheaper supply of meat would be very difficult to obtain for the people of this country.
§ MR. HENEAGEsaid, that the adoption of this clause would be a most cruel injustice to the consumer as well as the tenant farmer. It was to future years that they must look to develop the cattle trade on a satisfactory footing. If the duration of the Bill was limited in the way proposed, it would only give an inducement for the butcher to keep up the price of meat, for he knew that he would only have to keep it up for two years in order to get up a cry against the Bill and succeed in repealing it. He only wished to say one other word. It was proposed that the Bill should be limited to two years; but, in the ordinary course of things, the end of two years would about coincide with the period of a General Election, and they might be for five or six months without a renewal of the Act.
§ MR. C. H. JAMEShoped the Committee would see its way to pass this clause. What was the position of things? The agriculturists declared that this Bill would not increase the price of meat; but the artizans of the country, some of whom sent him there, declared that it would increase the price. Well, if this Bill were only passed for a year, or two years, they would, at all events, have an opportunity of seeing which side was right, and it would be a most reasonable thing that that opportunity 1263 should be given. At the end of two years they would know which side was right. Supposing the price of meat went up 2d. per lb., no Government on earth could stand it. Parliament would have to repeal the Act at once. Was it not wise, then, to restrict the operation of the Act to two years? If it was then found to work well, it would be put into the Continuance Bill, and would be renewed without any great debate; whereas, if it did not work well, there would be another debate, and a very proper one too. He hoped the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) would take take a Division, so that they might know how this matter stood; and, if he did, he (Mr. C. H. James) would certainly vote with him.
§ MR. C. H. WILSONsaid, there was one interest which had not been mentioned in the course of the debate, and that was the shipping interest. There had been an enormous number of steamers built to carry live cattle from America, and this legislation would seriously affect that trade. Hon. Gentlemen who represented the agricultural interest, and who talked of the depression of agriculture, should remember that such legislation would be the cause of considerable depression in the shipping interest. He (Mr. C. H. Wilson) was intimately acquainted with the shipping of this country, and especially that shipping engaged in the carriage of cattle. A great deal had been said about bringing dead meat in place of live cattle; but he might say that, largely as his ships had been engaged in carrying live cattle, they had not carried one single ton of dead meat, and his own opinion was that the importation of dead meat would not increase so largely as was expected. Indeed, if a check were put on the importation of cattle from the United States, it would place a check on the production of cattle in the United States, arid this, in turn, would place a check on the importation of dead meat. If the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) went to a Division in this matter, he should certainly have pleasure in voting with him.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 44; Noes 108: Majority 64.—(Div. List, No. 83.)
1264§ After the numbers were announced,
§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDONSir Arthur Otway, I wish to state that I went into the wrong Lobby by mistake.
§ MR. BROADHURSTI do not know whether I am in Order in doing so; but I wish to inform you, Sir, that there were two hon. Members in the Aye Lobby who came out after the Clerk had left the Lobby—Sir Wilfrid Lawson and Colonel Smith—and the Tellers agreed that they should be counted.
§ Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.