Lords Sitting of 10 February 1876

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL.—First Reading—Ecclesiastical Offices and Fees* (3).

NEW PEERS.
William Earl of Abergavenny, having been created Earl of Lewes in the County of Sussex and Marquess of Abergavenny in the County of Monmouth—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
Edward Montagu Stuart Granville, Baron Wharncliffe, having been created Viscount Carlton of Carlton and Earl of Wharncliffe, both in the West Riding of the County of York—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

QUEEN'S SPEECH—HER MAJESTY'S ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.
THE LORD STEWARD (Earl BEAUCHAMP)reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:—
MY LORDS,
I THANK you sincerely for your loyal and dutiful Address.
It will always be My earnest endeavour to cooperate with you in promoting the happiness and contentment of My People.

CATTLE DISEASES (ENGLAND AND IRELAND)—THE PRIVY COUNCIL REGULATIONS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYsaid, that the subject on which he had given Notice was one which had excited so much attention throughout the country

  125
  that he did not need to apologize to their Lordships for calling attention to it. The noble Duke the President of the Council had paid so much attention to the subject that until he read the speech of the noble Duke at Chichester some short time ago he was not aware of the difficulties which the Government had to encounter in dealing with this question as regarded Ireland. Until he read that speech he expected to find the Regulations of the Privy Council made uniform throughout the United Kingdom. Their Lordships would recollect that in 1873 a Committee of the House of Commons, presided over by Mr. Forster, was appointed to inquire into the matter; and that in their Report they made several recommendations which were adopted by the late Government and carried out by the Privy Council. One of those recommendations was that as regarded foot-and-mouth disease all restrictions should be removed. But in 1874, when the present Government came into office, these Regulations were altered, and they issued an Order in Council by which local authorities were empowered to re-impose restrictions, if they thought them required; and the result was that there were at present in many localities Regulations altogether at variance with the recommendation of the Committee of 1873, while in others there were no restrictions whatever. He approved the action of the Lord President in the appointment of additional inspectors, and for the efforts they had made to secure the sanitary condition of the vessels in which cattle were imported into this country. He believed also that great good had resulted from the better cleansing of trucks and lairs; but the great blot on the present Regulations was that the local authorities were enabled to do something or to do nothing, just as they might think fit. The result was that, of two places sending cattle to the same market, the one might have restrictions while the other might have none. The spirit of the recommendation of the Committee of 1873 was that there should be uniformity of practice throughout the whole Kingdom in respect to cattle diseases. The Committee drew a broad distinction between foot-and-mouth disease and pleuro-pneumonia. As regarded the former they recommended the withdrawal of all restrictions, while as to the latter they were to be retained; and the
  126
  result was that for want of sufficient Regulations to guide the discretion of the local authorities there was not that uniformity of action which was contemplated by the Committee. In most counties in England these restrictions were enforced and penalties were inflicted on those who drove cattle so diseased along the high road; whereas in Ireland there were no restrictions whatever imposed upon the free transit of cattle from one part of the country to another. As regarded foot-and-mouth disease, he thought it was both desirable and easy that the Regulations should be uniform throughout the whole country; and therefore he hoped that the Regulations, like their distinguished relative the Slave Circular, would be withdrawn. As respected pleuro-pneumonia, he thought it indefensible that while in England the compulsory slaughter of animals affected with that disease, with compensation to the owners, should be the law, no such provisions should exist in Ireland. It was believed that in Ireland the farmers were at one time opposed to the compulsory slaughter of animals attacked with pleuro-pneumonia; but he had recently read, with pleasure, that at a meeting of the Irish Cattle Defence Association that body expressed its readiness to concur in any restrictions which the Privy Council might think fit to impose. There was much uneasiness on those points in the public mind at present, and therefore he begged to ask the Lord President, Whether it is intended to withdraw the present Privy Council Regulations respecting Foot-and-Mouth disease among Cattle; and whether steps will be taken to place the Regulations regarding Cattle affected with pleuro-pneumonia and other diseases upon the same footing in Ireland as in England?
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that as the Privy Council seemed to contemplate the foot-and-mouth diseases with considerable equanimity, it would be well that the losses which had been sustained should not be under-estimated. One cause of loss had been omitted in all the Correspondence on the subject and figures which he had seen, and that was the loss of calves, for cows which had had the foot-and-mouth disease often slipped their calves.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he could assure the noble Lord who had just spoken that

  127
  the Privy Council did not contemplate the foot-and-mouth disease with equanimity. If the noble Lord had been in the Privy Council Office for the last three years he would have known that. Deputations on the subject were received in great numbers, and scarcely a week passed in which the subject was not brought under their consideration. He could assert that in its action the Privy Council had been actuated by the desire to do everything possible to stop a disease which was injurious to all classes—not only to agriculturists, but to consumers. But the Privy Council had to devise measures such as would mitigate the evil without doing grievous injury to any one class—they had to consider what the effect of any measure would be, not only on the producers, but on the consumers of the country. It was rather unfortunate that in the discussion of measures for stamping out cattle diseases, persons at agricultural meetings and in farmers' clubs were very apt to mix up foot-and-mouth disease with pleuro-pneumonia, when the two diseases were very different, and called for, perhaps, very different forms of treatment at the hands of the Privy Council. The noble Marquess was perfectly correct in his statement that in 1873 the Committee of the House of Commons recommended the removal of all restrictions in respect of foot-and-mouth disease, and that, in accordance with that recommendation, the Privy Council revoked its Order. But shortly after the present Government came into office, numerous deputations waited on him (the Duke of Richmond) from various parts of the country, representing that foot-and-mouth disease was not only prevalent, but on the increase, and asking the Government to re-impose the restrictions. Among those who thus applied to the Privy Council were deputations representing such important districts and bodies as the East Biding of Yorkshire, South Devon, Cornwall, and Derbyshire, the Cheshire and Nottinghamshire Chambers of Agriculture, and the Royal Agricultural Society. He felt that he could not altogether disregard representations and requests urged by the deputations from such influential bodies; and the course the Privy Council took was to issue an Order enabling local authorities to impose restrictions if they thought it desirable to do so. He gave those authorities credit for care and
  128
  watchfulness in the matter. The result had been that of 52 counties in England and Wales 41, and of 32 in Scotland 20, had imposed restrictions. In reply to the first Question of the noble Marquess, he had to say that it was not intended to withdraw the Order in Council under which those restrictions were imposed by local authority. He now came to the much more important subject of pleuro-pneumonia. The noble Marquess said that until he read his speech at Chichester he had not been acquainted with the difficulties which the Government had to encounter with respect to regulations in Ireland; but if the noble Marquess had done him the honour to read his speeches in that House he would have known that so far back as 1874 he stated those difficulties in answer to a noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Kimberley) who had filled the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and that the noble Earl concurred with him as to the existence of those difficulties. First of all, the Privy Council in England had no power to deal with matters which were within the province of the Privy Council of Ireland. Next, there were not proportionately in Ireland so many qualified veterinary inspectors as in this country. But he had never failed to see—what must be evident to every man of common sense—the anomaly of having in England a compulsory slaughter of animals affected with pleuro-pneumonia, while no such measure was applied to Ireland. It must be borne in mind that in England there were local authorities over every part of the country, while in Ireland the only local authority was the Irish Privy Council itself. It was manifest that where there were local authorities such as those existing in England there was greater security that such a measure as compulsory slaughter, with the payment of compensation which it involved, would be applied in proper cases only. But the question had engaged the anxious attention of the Government ever since he had been in office; and he was happy to say that the Government did intend to enforce the compulsory slaughter in Ireland of animals affected with pleuro-pneumonia. His right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland would introduce into the other House of Parliament a Bill having that object in view, and would state the manner in which it was proposed to effect it.
  LORD EMLYexpressed his satisfaction with the course which the Government intended to take, and said it was a mistake to suppose that the farmers in Ireland were opposed to the slaughter of cattle affected with pleuro-pneumonia; but he regretted that in opposition to the opinion so decidedly expressed by the Committee of the House of Commons, against its urgent restrictions on cattle affected with foot-and-mouth disease, these restrictions were to be continued. Rules such as those for beasts affected with pleuro-pneumonia, could be imposed in the case of a disease which caused a mortality of only three per 1,000, and any less stringent rules would be entirely ineffectual.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYalso wished to express his satisfaction at the decision come to by the Government with respect to Ireland. He thought the noble Duke was quite right in keeping foot-and-mouth disease and pleuro-pneumonia apart, because there was a great difference between the two. He was one of those who doubted very much the expediency of the restrictions in the case of foot-and-mouth disease; but, whatever might be their value if fairly tried, they had not a fair trial under the present system. They could not have such a trial as long as they were in force in some counties while they were not applied at all in others—to be of any value they must be extended to the whole country. He did not say that the Government would have been justified in rejecting the representations made by numerous deputations to the noble Duke in 1874; but he thought that since a considerable majority of the counties were in favour of restrictions, there could be no difficulty in applying them to all. He believed he might say it was the general opinion of agriculturists that if restrictions were to exist at all, they ought to be of a severer character than those now in force. It had been said—not in that House, but in other places—that agriculturists sought for restrictions in order to benefit themselves by enhancing the price of meat. This charge was unfounded. The disease enhanced the price of meat more than any restrictive regulations were likely to do. It was quite as much in the interest of the consumer as it was in that of the producer that compulsory slaughter in the case of pleuro-pneumonia should be extended to Ireland.
  THE EARL OF POWISsaid, it was a general opinion among agriculturists that there should be more protection against diseased cattle from Ireland. The Agricultural Society ascertained some years ago that the steamers in which Irish cattle were imported propagated disease; and it had been shown that cattle so imported did not in some cases exhibit symptoms of disease at the landing-place, though after they had been conveyed to their destination inland they were ascertained to be affected.

AGRICULTURAL CHILDREN ACT.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE DUKE OF ST. ALBANS, in putting a Question respecting the Agricultural Children Act, said, he trusted the importance of the subject in our agricultural districts would be a sufficient excuse for his intruding on the time and the attention of their Lordships' House. He thought it was a great advantage that his Question would be put in that House, where they had the advantage of the presence of the noble Duke, who, besides being the St. Anthony of the Government, and having the care of the animals, was 'also the Minister of Education. He need not remind their Lordships that the Agricultural Children Act was introduced by Mr. Clare Sowell Read and Mr. Pell, two Gentlemen well qualified to represent the agricultural interests. The Bill provided no machinery for putting its provisions into force; the police, however, had been brought into requisition in some counties, but in others it was not so, and conspicuous among the latter was the county of Buckingham, where it was reported that Mr. Disraeli voted against their being so used. The Prime Minister would not give a heedless vote in a leisure hour to support a state of things which rendered the Act of Parliament a dead letter. The measure, he must admit, was unpopular among the farming population and the voting classes in the counties; but the illustrious head of Her Majesty's Government was the last person to obstruct an Act of Parliament in order to secure the approbation of his constituents. He (the Duke of St. Albans) was, therefore, driven to the conclusion that the Government had some remedy to propose. It was not his

  131
  business to point out the evil that existed on that occasion, or what should be done; though he quite admitted that the employment of the police in the relations the Act dealt with was most objectionable, if it could be avoided. They had, however, given the Act a good trial, and he had this to observe, that the present state of things ought no longer to exist. The ancient divisions of counties were eccentric to our ideas; and how were they to justify to the farmer and labourer in one parish the justice of his obeying a law which his neighbours on the other side of a fence could avoid? He might instance the fact of two farmers who, as he was informed, had been fined 6d. and costs at Huntingdon. They refused to pay, and a distress warrant was issued. He was afraid those persons had the full sympathy of their class; and it must be confessed it was difficult to see why they should be subjected to the ignominy of a fine, while the farmer in Buckinghamshire was exempt, and the head of the Government supported his position. He begged to ask, Whether Her Majesty's Government contemplate any steps to give effect to the Agricultural Children Act and to secure uniformity of action under its provisions in the several counties?
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, their Lordships were aware that in Her Majesty's most gracious Speech from the Throne an announcement was made that a Bill would be introduced on the subject of Primary Education. It must be obvious to everybody who had looked into the question that no Bill dealing with that subject could overlook the education of children in the agricultural districts. His noble Friend (Lord Sandon) would introduce in the House of Commons a Bill on the subject of Primary Education at no distant date, and would state the intentions of the Government. Their Lordships would see, therefore, that he could not be expected on the present occasion to give any further reply to the Question of the noble Duke.
  LORD COTTESLOEsaid, there was a misapprehension as to the course taken by the Prime Minister in Buckinghamshire with reference to the question. At the Quarter Sessions it was proposed to employ the police to enforce the Act. A magistrate moved the previous question, and it was for this latter motion Mr.
  132
  Disraeli and the majority of the magistrates recorded their votes.

  ECCLESIASTICAL OFFICES AND FEES BILL. [H.L.]
  A Bill to reform certain Ecclesiastical Offices and to regulate Ecclesiastical Fees—Was presented by The Lord Archbishop of CANTERBURY; read 1a. (No. 3.)
  House adjourned at Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.