HL Deb 27 May 1878 vol 240 cc722-39

House in Committee (on Second Re-commitment).

Clauses 1 to 25 agreed to.

Clause 26 (Privy Council to provide for pleuro-pneumonia and foot and mouth disease during transit, &c.).

THE DUKE OF SOMERSET

called attention to sub-section 2, which gives power to the Privy Council, by General Order, to make such provision as they may think necessary or expedient, respecting the case of animals found to be affected with pleuro-pneumonia or foot and mouth disease "while in a foreign animals' wharf or foreign animals' quarantine station." He had on the Notice Paper an Amendment proposing to omit from the 5th schedule all provisions relating to quarantine. This sub-section included quarantine. The evidence of competent authorities went to show that the proposal in the sub-section was not desirable, and that, even if it were, it would be impracticable. The evidence of Professor Simonds and of Professor Brown was against these quarantine stations. "If we wanted to propagate disease, there is," they stated, "no better plan than to establish quarantine stations." Last year the Lord President himself admitted that these quarantine stations were hotbeds of disease, and that quarantine was one of the most difficult things in the world to carry into operation. He (the Duke of Somerset) thought that if they wanted to spread the disease all over England, they could not adopt more effectual means than by this system of quarantine. The healthy animals of one importation would be brought into contact with the diseased animals of another importation, and so the disease would be spread abroad in all directions. On the other hand, he believed it would be safer to admit animals from countries free from disease without any quarantine at all. He moved to omit from the clause the words "or foreign animals' quarantine station."

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON

said, that he had not changed his opinion since last year. Last year he thought that quarantine of itself would not prevent the introduction and spread of disease—he continued to think so; and, accordingly, he had introduced in this Bill the principle of a compulsory slaughter, at the port of debarkation, of all fat animals imported from abroad. The provisions as to quarantine, therefore, would have but a limited application, and applied chiefly to store cattle which were necessarily intended for removal into the interior, and to animals imported for breeding, which would be very few in number.

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

said, he could discover no reason why store cattle should be admitted into the country, while fat animals were refused to be slaughtered at the port of debarkation. He should support the Amendment of the noble Duke.

On Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 131; Not-Contents 53: Majority 78.

CONTENTS.
Cairns, L. (L. Chancellor.) Ellesmere, E.
Erne, E.
Feversham, E.
Richmond, D. Grey, E.
Rutland, D. Harewood, E.
Harrowby, E.
Hertford, M. Jersey, E.
Salisbury, M. Lanesborough, E.
Lucan, E.
Amherst, E. Malmesbury, E.
Bathurst, E. Manvers, E.
Beaconsfield, E. Mar and Kellie, E.
Beauchamp, E. Poulett, E.
Belmore, E. Powis, E.
Bradford, E. Radnor, E.
Cadogan, E. Ravensworth, E.
Coventry, E. Redesdale, E.
Dartmouth, E. Romney, E.
De La Warr, E. Selkirk, E.
Devon, E. Stanhope, E.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.) Stradbroke, E,
Strathmore and Kinghorn, E.
Eldon, E. Tankerville, E.
Verulam, E. Gordon of Drumearn, L.
Wharncliffe, E.
Wilton, E. Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)
Zetland, E.
Gwydir, L.
Hampton, L.
Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.) Hanmer, L.
Combermere,V. Harlech, L
Cranbrook, V. Hartismere, L, (L. Henniker.)
Gough, V.
Hardinge, V.. Hastings, L. (E. Loudoun.)
Hawarden, V. [Teller.] Hawke, L.
Melville, V. Heytesbury, L.
Powerscourt, V. Inchiquin, L.
Sidmouth, V. Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)
Torrington, V.
Leconfield, L.
Gloucester and Bristol, L. Bp. Lyveden, L.
Massy, L.
St. Asaph, L. Bp. Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)
St. David's, L. Bp.
Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.)
Airey, L.
Ashford, L. (V. Bury.) Moore, L. (M. Drogheda.)
Bateman, L.
Bloomfield, L. Norton, L,
Bolton, L. Oranmore and Browne, L.
Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)
Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)
Braybrooke, L.
Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.) Penrhyn, L.
Raglan, L.
Castlemaine, L. Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)
Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)
Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)
Chelmsford, L.
Clanbrassill, L. (E. Roden.) Rayleigh, L.
Rivers, L.
Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.) Ross, L. (E. Glasgow.)
Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)
Clinton, L.
Clonbrock, L. Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)
Colchester, L.
Colville of Culross, L. Skelmersdale, L.[Teller.]
Cottesloe, L.
Delamere, L. Sondes, L.
de Ros, L. Stanley of Alderley, L.
Digby, L. Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)
Douglas, L. (E. Home.)
Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.) Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)
Dunsany, L. Templemore, L.
Egerton, L. Tollemache, L.
Ellenborough, L. Tredegar, L.
Elphinstone, L. Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)
Fitzhardinge, L.
Forbes, L. Ventry, L.
Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.) Wigan, L. (E. Crawford and Balcarres.)
Gage, L. (V. Gage.) Winmarleigh, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Bedford, D. Airlie, E.
Cleveland, D. Camperdown, E.
Devonshire, D. Carnarvon, E.
Grafton, D. Chichester, E.
Somerset, D. Clarendon, E.
Cowper, E.
Ailesbury, M. Derby, E.
Lansdowne, M. Ducie, E.
Ripon, M. Ilchester, E.
Kimberley, E. Hatherley, L.
Morley, E. [Teller.] Kinnaird, L.
Spencer, E. Lawrence, L.
Sydney, E. Leigh, L.
Cardwell, V. Lovat, L.
Lyttelton, L.
Aberdare, L. Monson, L. [Teller.]
Acton, L. Mont Eagle, L.(M. Sligo.)
Belper, L.
Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) Mostyn, L.
O'Hagan, L.
Carlingford, L. Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)
Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)
Robartes, L.
de Clifford, L. Romilly, L.
De Mauley, L. Sandhurst, L.
Dorchester, L. Sandys, L.
Emly, L. Selborne, L.
Foley, L. Stafford, L. (V. Enfield.)
Greville, L.
Hammond, L. Waveney, L.

Resolved in the Affirmative.

Clauses 27 to 32, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 33 (Prohibition of importation, slaughter, or quarantine of foreign animals).

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

said, he was as anxious as his noble Friend the Lord President for the adoption of all reasonable measures required for the prevention of cattle diseases; for, undoubtedly, those diseases inflicted great loss on the agricultural interests of this country; but he objected to any restrictions that went further than was demanded by the necessities of the case. He thought that in its present shape the Bill did go too far, and he had therefore given Notice of an Amendment to this clause, giving discretionary powers as to slaughter and quarantine to the Privy Council. It was with satisfaction that he saw that, in consequence of a wise recommendation of the Select Committee to which the Bill had been recently referred, Canada and the United States were no longer included among the countries' fat animals, from which on their arrival in this country must be slaughtered at the port of debarkation. Did the compulsory slaughter extend to animals coming from those countries, an important and rapidly increasing trade would be very considerably injured, if not altogether destroyed. As showing this, he might mention that during the first five months of last year the number of live animals imported from Canada and the United States to the port of Liverpool was 1,360. In a somewhat shorter period of time—from the 1st January to the 20th May—this year the number was 5,880. The principle on which his Amendment to this clause proceeded was that adopted in every other part of the Bill, and his object was to have it applied to cattle imported from European countries; while the 33rd clause, as it stood, and the manner in which by its provisions animals from those countries were to be dealt with, were in opposition to that principle. He regretted to see that the discretion at present confided to the Privy Council in this respect was taken away by the present Bill. The principle of the Bill in respect to the home trade and to the trade from the United States and Canada was that of vesting unlimited discretion in the Privy Council—it was only with regard to cattle coming from European countries that the Bill refused any discretion to the Privy Council. He contended that there was no occasion for that. A state of things might have prevailed in foreign countries which would have rendered the exercise of any discretion on the part of the Privy Council, as regarded the slaughter of animals imported, a very difficult matter. The number of diseased animals might be so equally diffused throughout the European countries as to make it difficult to make any difference between one country and another; but he hoped to show that that was not the case, and that there were countries in Europe, the animals exported from which might safely be introduced here without compulsory slaughter. Under the existing law there were five un-scheduled countries—that was to say, countries from which animals might be admitted into this country without slaughter—namely, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Spain, and Portugal. Their Lordships would remember that, in introducing this Bill, his noble Friend the Lord President stated that during the year 1876 there came into this country 11,662 diseased animals out of a total of 1,416,956; but from the five unscheduled countries there were only 174 diseased animals out of 164,893, the total imported from those countries. Their Lordships had now before them the figures for 1877, which showed that 3,796 diseased animals came in out of 1,357,856 in all, and from the five unscheduled countries only 15 diseased animals out of a total number of 143,523; and that disease was foot-and-mouth disease, and no other. During the last eight years 620,190 animals had been imported from the un-scheduled countries, and among these there were only three cases of pleuro-pneumonia, and none at all of cattle plague. But he was content to stand on the case of Denmark alone, and he would confine himself to cattle from thence. There had been imported from that country during the last eight years 252,342 animals, of which only 36 were diseased. They were affected by foot-and-mouth disease, and there was not a single case of pleuro-pneumonia. Last year the imports from it were 50,140, of which only eight were diseased. In 1876 there were 57,966 imported, of which none were diseased. He thought, therefore, he might ask their Lordships whether, in the instance of Denmark, there was not an overwhelming case for exemption from the Schedule of dangerous countries. Discretion having been applied to the United States and Canada by the Select Committee, he wished to know why the same principle was not to be applied to Denmark. Certainly, it appeared to him that in the case of such a foreign country as Denmark, the Privy Council might be entrusted with that discretion which the Bill vested in them as regarded the home trade. On a former occasion his noble Friend the Lord President told their Lordships that the compulsory provision in respect of the foreign trade was necessary for the stamping out of the disease. In reply to that, he (the Marquess of Ripon) endeavoured on the second reading to show that the provisions contained in the Bill would not effect that object. He would not go over the evidence he quoted on that occasion; but he would call their Lordships' attention to some evidence which had been given before the Select Committee of that House to which the Bill had been since referred. Professor Simonds, who was examined before that Committee, was the President of the Royal Veterinary College, and was a veterinary surgeon who for years had been connected with the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council. How did he describe the measures which he thought ought to be adopted? He said— I think that the movement of all animals should be stopped in counties where the foot-and-mouth disease exists—that is to say, that they should only move by licence in districts or departments which are free from disease. It would be also necessary to suppress fairs and markets and public sales. These are strong measures, but would be the chief measures that we should find absolutely necessary for the purpose of eradicating contagious diseases. Then, what was Mr. Booth's opinion on the same subject? When that witness was under examination by Mr. W. E. Forster, these questions and answers occurred— 2,403.—What would you do with the large markets?—If necessary, I should not hesitate to stop them for the time being. There are always sources of meat supply. 2,404.—Would not that really imply the stoppage of all the large markets?—It does not follow at all. 2,405.—Take the market at Norwich Hill; supposing that foot-and-mouth disease was in the county of Norfolk—I do not know whether it is or not—do you still think you would have any chance of stamping out the disease if you allowed any cattle to go to Norwich?—If the foot-and-mouth disease broke out in the district of Norfolk, I should stop the market at once. 2,406.—My object is to find out what would be the inconvenience to the trade generally of these stamping-out regulations, and therefore I want to know What you consider that it would be necessary to do. Do you think it would be enough merely to stop the market when you knew that foot-and-mouth disease was existing?—I should not allow an animal to be moved outside a district in which foot-and-mouth disease was prevalent. I should take a certain large area and then stop the total movement of cattle in that district, as is done in Germany in case of an outbreak of cattle plague. Before the Select Committee of 1877 on the Cattle Plague and the Importation of Live Stock, Professor Brown suggested certain measures. He said— I should make certain alterations in the present system of dealing with these diseases, or I should make a radical change, abandoning the present system altogether, and adopting an entirely new one in its place. First of all, having regard to the existence of these two diseases in this country, I should feel bound to impose very severe restrictions upon the cattle trade. Both in reference to foot-and-mouth disease and pleuro-pneumonia there can, I think, be no question whatever that the infective matter is chiefly conveyed through the movement of diseased and infected animals. Therefore I should be obliged to adopt such a system as would entirely prevent this movement. In order to do that, I should be compiled to divide the whole country into districts, placing each one in charge of an inspector, who would be in constant communication with the central department. Having found all the centres where either disease exists in the district, it would be absolutely essential to prevent the movement of animals from those centres during the continuance of the disease. And Mr. Wilson recommended the internal restrictions so proposed by Professor Brown. He asserted—and he (the Marquess of Ripon) did not think it was denied—that the provisions of this Bill would not stamp out foot-and-mouth disease. But if this were so, the clause which they were now considering was directly in the teeth of the Report of the Committee of 1877, upon which this Bill professed to be founded. The Select Committee on Cattle Plague and Importation of Live Stock, 1877, in their Report said— And your Committee are of opinion that no further restrictions should be placed on the importation of foreign animals in respect of foot-and-mouth disease and pleuro-pneumonia, unless at the same time orders be enforced throughout Great Britain that in every district where either pleuro-pneumonia or foot-and-mouth disease exists, and which has been declared by the Privy Council to be infected, all movement of cattle be prohibited except under licence; that fairs and markets be under similar restrictions, and that absolute prohibition of movement be enforced against infected farms for periods varying from two months in pleuro-pneumonia to 28 days in outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease. It was upon this understanding contained in the conclusion of their Report that this Committee consented to impose this very stringent restriction on the foreign trade; but from that understanding the Bill distinctly went back, and he asserted that these provisions were not founded on the Report of the Committee of 1877. He asserted that it was unjust and unreasonable to impose restrictions on the foreign trade when they were not going to impose restrictions on the home trade. What was good for one was equally good for the other. This brought him to his third objection to this Bill. His noble Friend the Lord President, when he introduced this Bill, gave some statistics with respect to the number of cattle existing in this country and the number of cattle imported from abroad; and he instituted a comparison to show how unimportant was the foreign importation. He (the Marquess of Ripon) thought the figures then given were erroneous for the purpose of comparison. His noble Friend took the whole number of cattle existing in this country. Of course, he ought to have compared the number of cattle in the home market for consumption in any one year with the number of animals imported for consumption from abroad. But, be that as it might, he believed he should not be contradicted when he said that a comparatively small restriction on importation of cattle from abroad might lead to a considerable increase in price. His noble Friend himself, with all his official experience, said to their Lordships last year— He could give an illustration of the effect of putting a check on the importation of animals into this country. During the six years ending 1869, the country imported from France 112,618 cattle; but in 1870 France was placed in the scheduled countries, which meant that all animals coming from France had to be slaughtered at the port of debarkation or undergo a quarantine; and those restrictions were so stringent, that in the seven years following 1869, the number imported was only 24,095, showing a very great distinction between the two periods."—[3 Hansard, ccxxxiii. 101.] He (the Marquess of Ripon) therefore contended that the first effect of this Bill, at all events, must be to raise the price of meat. With regard to the dead meat trade, it was practically in its infancy—it might increase or it might not—its future was altogether a matter of conjecture and uncertainty. He wished to ask whether this was a proper time to try the experiment proposed by this Bill? Trade was bad, wages were low, trade disputes were rife, peace and war were possibly trembling in the balance; and, in his opinion, it could not be wise at such a time to run the risks that would be incurred if this Bill were to pass in its present shape. Next winter might be a hard one; but, if this Bill passed, the noble Duke would be unable to relax the provisions of this Bill if it once passed into law, however high the price of meat might become. And why was it to be done? Why should the people of this country be deprived of 143,000 animals imported into England last year from these unscheduled countries, only 15 of which were found to be diseased? It was said that the object was to promote the interests of the agricultural classes. Well, he belonged to that class himself, but he failed to see how they would be benefited by the Bill. Than the introduction of such a measure he could not conceive a more short-sighted policy with respect to the interests of the agriculturists. If the price of meat rose from any cause after this Bill passed the rise would be attributed to this measure, an agitation would spring up, and thereupon would be serious danger that in the result not only would the provision to which he objected be repealed, but the Privy Council would be deprived of many powers really required for the prevention of disease. It had been shortly alleged against the Bill that it was framed with the view of renewing agricultural protection. The noble Duke opposite, on his own behalf, had repudiated the correctness of that allegation, and he entirely accepted the noble Duke's statement so far as he was personally concerned; but he was not equally clear with regard to the intentions of those who were pushing the noble Duke forward, because he was convinced that the practical effect of this measure would be to establish commercial protection. He desired, especially, to know how the noble Duke was going to defend the interference with the cattle trade of Denmark under the provisions of this Bill? He could not conceive how there could be any adequate justification. Turning to the exact effect which his Amendment would have on the existing law, he had made a great concession to his noble Friend in his Amendment—as the law now stood, free admission of cattle was the rule and slaughter the exception—if his Amendment were accepted, slaughter would be the rule and free admission the exception. He approved the most stringent regulations being made for the prevention of the importation of diseased cattle into this country, and he would leave the noble Duke full liberty to make such terms with foreign countries as would secure the importation into this country of healthy cattle alone. The Government seemed to act on the maxim—Sic volo, sic jubio, stet pro ratrone voluntas. He hoped they would recede from this position and permit this alteration to be made. He earnestly begged their Lordships to adopt his Amendment, because it was in entire accordance with the general principle which pervaded every part of the Bill with the exception of this single clause because it would remove from the measure the aspect of protection which it now possessed, and because it would give the Privy Council the most ample powers to prevent the importation of diseased cattle, while it would secure to the great mass of consumers, and especially to the poorest inhabitants of our large towns, the continued and unfettered enjoyment of those supplies of meat which they now derived from countries in Europe free from disease, which on every principle of Free Trade they had a right to claim, and of which it was neither just, nor expedient, nor reasonable to deprive them.

Amendment moved— Clause 33, page 17, line 15, at end of clause, add—("Provided that the Privy Council may from time to time, if they think fit, by order or by licence in relation to foreign animals of all or any kinds brought from all or any countries to all or any ports, modify or suspend, subject to such conditions and restrictions as they think fit, the provisions of the said Schedule, relating to slaughter or to quarantine.")—(The Marquess of Ripon.)

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON

said, that, having had so many opportunities of addressing their Lordships on the subject of this Bill, he would confine his remarks on the present occasion within the briefest possible compass. He must, in the first place, deny that this Bill had been framed in the interests of the agriculturists—a more incorrect statement could not be made. Speaking for his Colleagues, as well as for himself, he could say that their object in framing the Bill had been, not to consult the interests of any one class, but the interests of every class in the country. He also denied that the measure had been framed with the view of reverting to the system of protection—though, indeed, his noble Friend had not insinuated that. He regretted that it was entirely out of his power to accept the Amendment proposed by the noble Marquess—it was opposed to the essential spirit of the Bill. The great object of the Bill was the prevention of the importation of disease into the country from abroad; and another object was to stamp out such disease as might exist or arise, without putting undue restrictions upon the trade of the country. This, of course, could not be effected without putting a restriction, to some extent, upon the home trade; and it would be unfair to take such a step without giving a counterbalancing advantage by enacting that cattle imported from abroad should be slaughtered at the port of debarkation, and that so the danger of disease being imported should be minimized. The Bill was simply an extension of the present system, and he believed that if it were carried, the trade would soon adapt itself to the altered circumstances. The noble Marquess had laid great stress upon the fact that very little diseased cattle had come from certain countries he had mentioned, which countries would be affected by the Bill. But what had been done in this direction had been done because it was felt to be necessary. Only a spark was needed to kindle a great fire, and if infected animals from abroad were allowed to go over the country, they would inevitably spread disease among their own herds. The Government were not, as had been said, going to exclude thousands of animals which might be used for the food of the people. What the Government said to foreign countries was—"Send us as many as you please. But we must slaughter them at the port of landing to prevent the propagation of disease. We do not object to your cattle coming over here. On the contrary, we shall be delighted to receive them on the terms we state." Denmark had been cited by the noble Marquess as a country where disease was rare. Yet in Denmark, from time to time, there had prevailed a considerable amount of disease. Then, again, it was worthy of notice, that Denmark herself had taken the most stringent precautions for keeping out the disease, and so also had other countries. Was England to be the only country that refused to take the necessary precautions? He held that in the cases of Denmark, Spain, Sweden, and Portugal, it would not be safe to allow cattle to be imported without slaughter. Of all the countries mentioned by the noble Marquess, Norway was the only country that was free of disease; but in 1877 only 110 cattle had been imported thence into England. Well, was it worth while endangering our own flocks and herds for such a small result? He thought not. The object of the Bill was to stamp out disease in this country, with as little restriction on trade as possible. Outside the limits where disease existed, trade would be perfectly free. The noble Marquess opposite had said that the precautions would not stamp out the disease; but that was a matter of opinion; and he was happy to be enabled to state to their Lordships that for a long time past there had not been so little cattle disease in the country as during the past 18 months. The assertion that the passing of the Bill would lead to an increase in the price of meat was a mere conjecture—one which he had no doubt would not be justified by the result. He was compelled, therefore, to meet the Amendment of the noble Marquess with a direct negative.

VISCOUNT CARDWELL

said, the noble Duke the Lord President declined to accept the proposal, on the ground that his Department would not be able to carry it into effect. This was to distrust himself too much. Only last year, on the alarm of cattle plague, he exercised those very powers with great success. As the amended Bill now stood, he would have to exercise them for the United States and Canada. Why not also for Spain and Portugal, and such continental countries as might be free from all fear of contagion? He had stated his desire not to deal with the foreign trade in a less favourable manner than he did with the home. If that were so, he might well accept the Amendment of his noble Friend, for it did not tend to diminish the power of the Privy Council to deal with cases where disease existed. If the noble Duke did not wish to deal with this matter in an exceptional manner, why did he not accept the Amendment? It would be impossible otherwise to persuade people that the Government were not adopting a policy of protection.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, there should be no mistake as to the question before the House. The object of the Bill was to increase the quantity of food in this country, and so to cheapen its price. For the purpose of doing that, it was absolutely essential that they should give confidence to the producer of food in this country that the investment of his capital would not be made in vain in consequence of the introduction of foreign disease. It was the producer of food in this country who furnished the consumer with some 16–17ths of all that was consumed, and therefore it was the producer of food whose confidence ought to be encouraged, and whose capital must be protected against losses from contagious disease. To produce that confidence, they must have a fixed policy. They all had confidence in his noble Friend the Lord President of the Council; and if they could pass an Act of Parliament that he should live for ever, and hold the Office for ever, no doubt all would be right—there would be no necessity for enacting a fixed policy; but since they could insert neither of these provisions in a Bill, they must take precautions; and, therefore, the policy by which they wished to increase the protection of food in this country must be placed, not at the caprice of any Executive Government that might be in power, but under the sanction of Parliament itself. That was the issue now before the Committee. They ought not to be misled by references to Canada, America, or Ireland. There was no occasion to take precautions against Ireland, for Ireland was going to be placed under the provisions of the Bill, and there was no occasion to take precautions against Canada or America, for they were at such a distance that the voyage itself was a natural guarantee.

THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY

said, he should vote with the Government. There were hot-beds of disease abroad, and it was therefore not unwise to leave it to the administrative Government to decide the course to be taken.

VISCOUNT POWERSCOURT

also supported the proposal of the Government. No cordon could be drawn which would not sometimes be broken through, and the slaughter of the animals at the ports was better than any cordon. He would vote against the Amendment of the noble Marquess.

On Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 36; Not-Contents 133: Majority 97.

CONTENTS.
Devonshire, D. Cardwell, V.
Somerset, D.
Aberdare, L.
Ailesbury, M. Acton, L.
Lansdowne, M. [Teller.] Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]
Ripon, M. Calthorpe, L.
Carlingford, L.
Airlie, E. Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)
Camperdown, E.
Clarendon, E. Dorchester, L.
Grey, E. Emly, L.
Kimberley, E. Hatherley, L.
Morley, E. Kinnaird, L.
Spencer, E. Lawrence, L.
Sydney, E. Leigh, L.
Lyttelton, L. Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)
Monson, L.
Mostyn, L. Selborne, L.
O'Hagan, L. Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)
Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)
Waveney, L.
Robartes, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Cairns, L. (L. Chancellor.) Strathallan, V.
Torrington, V.
Richmond, D. Gloucester and Bristol, L. Bp.
Rutland, D.
Bristol, M. Airey, L.
Exeter, M. Alington, L.
Hertford, M. Ashford, L. (V. Bury.)
Salisbury, M. Aveland, L.
Bagot, L.
Amherst, E. Bateman, L.
Bathurst, E. Bloomfield, L.
Beaconsfield, E. Bolton, L.
Beauchamp, E. Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)
Belmore, E.
Bradford, E. Braybrooke, L.
Cadogan, E. Brodrick.L. (V.Midleton.)
Coventry, E.
Dartmouth, E. Castlemaine, L.
Devon, E. Chelmsford, L.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.) Clanbrassill, L. (E. Roden.)
Clifton. L. (E.Darnley.)
Eldou, E. Clinton, L.
Ellesmere, E. Colchester, L.
Erne, E. Conyers, L.
Feversham, E. Cottesloe, L.
Fortescue, E. Delamere, L.
Haddington, E. de Ros, L.
Harewood, E. Digby, L.
Harrowby, E. Douglas, L. (E. Home.)
Jersey, E. Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)
Lanesborough, E.
Lucan, E. Dunsany, L.
Manvers, E. Elphinstone, L.
Mar and Kellie, E. Fitzhardinge, L.
Mount Edgecumbe, E. Forbes, L.
Onslow, E. Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)
Poulett, E.
Powis, E. Gage, L. (V. Gage.)
Radnor, E. Gordon of Drumearn, L
Ravensworth, E'
Redesdale, E. Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)
Romney, E.
Selkirk, E. Grey de Radcliffe, L. (V. Grey de Wilton.)
Stanhope, E.
Stradbroke, E. Gwydir, L.
Strathmore and Kinghorn, E Hanmer, L.
Harlech, L.
Tankerville, E, Hartismere.L. (L.Henniker.)
Verulam, E.
Waldegrave, E. Hastings, L. (E. Loudoun.)
Westmorland, E.
Zetland, E. Hawke, L.
Heytesbury, L.
Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.) Howard de Walden, L.
Inchiquin, L.
Cranbrook, V. Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)
Hardinge, V.
Hawarden,V. [Teller.] Leconfield, L.
Melville, V. Lyveden, L.
Powerscourt, V. Manners, L.
Massy, L. Ross, L. (E. Glasgow.)
Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.) Saltersford.L. (E.Courtown.)
Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.) Saltoun, L.
Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)
Moore, L. (M. Drogheda.) Skelmersdale, L. [Teller.]
Northwick, L.
Norton, L. Stanley of Alderley, L,
O'Neill, L. Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)
Oranmore and Browne, L.
Templemore, L.
Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.) Tollemache, L.
Tredegar, L.
Penrhyn, L. Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)
Raglan, L.
Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.) Ventry, L.
Wigan, L. (E. Crawford and Balcarres.)
Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)
Winmarleigh, L.
Rayleigh, L. Wynford, L.
Romilly, L.

Resolved in the Negative.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 34 to 77, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 78 (Powers of Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council).

LORD EMLY moved that the clause should be struck out. The administration of the Bill in Ireland would be placed practically in the hands of the Veterinary Department, and evidence given before the Select Committee showed that almost universal dissatisfaction was felt with that Department. It was of the utmost importance that the Bill should be efficiently administered in Ireland as well as in England and Scotland, for laxity in Ireland might involve much more danger to the other parts of the Kingdom than the importation of cattle from Spain and Portugal. There was more danger from imperfect administration in Ireland than from the importation of foreign cattle. If this danger in Ireland were to be avoided, either the Bill must be administered in Ireland by the Lord President, as was done before 1866—and he thought that the arm of the Lord President, if long enough to reach Cape Ness, was long enough to reach Kerry and Donegal—or else the Veterinary Department of the Irish Privy Council must be considerably strengthened and made as strong as it was in England. One of the most interesting portions of the Report of the Privy Council in England was the Report of the Veterinary Inspector; but the name of Ireland never occurred in his Report, and it was certainly desirable that corresponding information relating to Ireland should be obtained and recorded.

Moved, to omit the Clause.

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

was understood to express his concurrence in the views of the noble Lord.

EARL SPENCER

said, the point was one on which he should be glad to hear the opinion of the Executive Government in Ireland. At first sight, it seemed desirable that the whole administration of this law should be under one head; but the separate administration of Ireland rendered it difficult to carry out this view. At the same time, since he was Lord Lieutenant, a very considerable change had been made by constituting Boards of Guardians local authorities under the Act relating to pleuro-pneumonia, and empowering them to act in precisely the same way as local authorities in England. One advantage, probably, in separate administration would be greater rapidity of action than would be possible if it were necessary to refer to London instead of Dublin. He agreed with the noble Lord (Lord Emly), and hoped the noble Duke would do something to strengthen the hands of the Veterinary Department in Ireland.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON

was sorry he could not acquiesce in the proposal of the noble Lord (Lord Emly) to strike out the 78th clause. That clause had been inserted after consultation with the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and those competent to advise him. In their opinion it was necessary to the proper working of the Act. There was no new principle involved in the clause which was not inserted for the first time—it was intended merely to carry out the law as it now existed. The noble Lord suggested that the Lord President of the Privy Council in this country should have the powers necessary for carrying the Bill into effect; but he (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) confessed that he did not see his way to accept the charge of carrying out the details of the Bill in Ireland, on account of the many difficulties that must necessarily arise—for instance, the inconvenience of communicating with the Police for the purpose of carrying out the Act, for under such arrangement they would be serving two masters. With regard to the Veterinary Department in Ireland, it was certainly true that it did not present a Report to Parliament, as the Department in England did, and some of the witnesses from Ireland described the Department as unsatisfactory. He would inquire into the matter, and see whether there was any feasible mode of strengthening the Department, so as to enable it to command as much respect in Ireland as the sister Department certainly did in this country.

On Question? Resolved in the Negative.

Clause agreed to.

Remaining Clauses and the Schedules agreed to, with Amendments.

The Report of the Amendments to be received To-morrow.

House adjourned at Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.