COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 11 June 1894)

§ THE EARL OF CHESTERFIELD
had no objection to the Amendment.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
said, if that was the noble Lord's view surely it would be better to allow the owner an option whether he would send for a veterinary surgeon or not. In some country places a veterinary surgeon could not be got under 20 miles, and in the case of a donkey worth £4 coming to grief, the unfortunate owner would have to pay the cost of bringing the veterinary surgeon over. It would only be fair that ho should be asked whether the veterinary surgeon should be sent for.

§ THE EARL OF CHESTERFIELD
pointed out that an Amendment had been adopted already in Clause 2, which would meet the noble Marquess's suggestion, that the veterinary surgeon must be found "within a reasonable distance." That Amendment was proposed exactly for this purpose.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
said, the object of the Bill was to enable a police constable in cases of severe accident to call for the opinion of a veterinary surgeon in the absence of the owner. This appeared to be a substantial amendment. Where a donkey (as in the case suggested by the noble Marquess) had merely fallen down in a fit, or something of that kind, if the police constable had obtained a veterinary surgeon and the donkey were to die, the owner would, under any circumstances, be responsible for having the carcase carried off; but supposing, on the other hand, the donkey were to recover and was on its legs again when the veterinary surgeon arrived, the question would arise, who was to pay for his attendance? As the Bill originally 763 stood, any expense of that kind would have fallen upon the parish or person inspiring the police constable. Would it now fall upon the owner? It seemed rather hard that he should be obliged to pay any expenses which the police might see fit to incur, and which could be said to be reasonable. The matter certainly deserved further consideration.

§ THE EARL OF CHESTERFIELD
said, if the noble Earl would bring it forward at a subsequent stage he would be happy to consider it.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
said, the Bill must go to a Standing Committee.

THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY
thought it was equally doubtful whether the owner should be called upon to pay if the police made a mistake. Clearly the Police Authorities should pay and not the owner.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
thought that in nine cases out of 10 a veterinary surgeon would be an unnecessary luxury, and should only be summoned in extreme cases. As a rule, a police constable would be perfectly competent to judge whether an animal should be slaughtered or not.

THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY
suggested the case of a gentleman out hunting, and his horse being injured. The police would be sent for; they would send for a veterinary surgeon, and the horse would be ordered to be destroyed. It would be very hard upon the parish to make it pay the cost of the veterinary surgeon. He knew a case where a veterinary surgeon called in simply ordered a horse to be destroyed, and charged 10s. for doing so. The matter seemed to require a good deal of consideration.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
had no objection to the Police Authorities paying the expense. All he wished to urge was the hardship upon the owner. If without his knowledge a veterinary surgeon was called in, it was rather hard that he should be called upon to pay for it.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
suggested that the matter could be dealt with in Standing Committee.

LORD MONKSWELL
proposed to insert "in Ireland" after the Grand Jury cess.

§ THE EARL OF CHESTERFIELD
suggested that that also should remain over for the further stage.