HL Deb 06 July 1896 vol 42 cc745-6

(1.) For Section 24 of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, shall be substituted the following sections namely:— The provisions set forth in Part 1. (slaughter at port of landing) of the Third Schedule to this Act shall apply to all foreign animals other than—

  1. (a) foreign animals the landing of which is for the time being prohibited by order of the Board of Agriculture; and
  2. (b) foreign animals intended for exhibition or other exceptional purposes, and the landing of which is allowed for the time being by the Board, subject to the provisions of Part II. (quarantine) of the Third Schedule to this Act."

(2.) Section 26 of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, is hereby repealed.

LORD HERSCHELL

gave notice that he would, after the Third Reading, move an Amendment to provide that if by an address of either House of Parliament it was represented to Her Majesty that any particular colony or country was free from cattle disease, and that cattle might be admitted from such colony or country without any danger of introducing or spreading disease, then it should be lawful for Her Majesty in Council to make an Order allowing the admission of such cattle.

The DUKE of RICHMOND

trusted that the Lord Privy Seal would not accept the Amendment, as it went to the very root of the Bill. He pointed out that there were some diseases in cattle which it was impossible to detect until they were killed. He mixed a good deal with the farmers of this country, and was on very friendly relations with a great number, and he thought there was scarcely any difference of opinion worth speaking of among the agriculturists of this country as to this Measure being a remarkably good one, and one which ought to be carried through in its present form.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

thought this was hardly the occasion on which to debate the Amendment of his noble and learned Friend. He utterly dissented from every word the noble Duke had uttered.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

Very likely.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said it was assumed that it was absolutely necessary that the Bill should pass in its present shape; and that every agriculturist in the country——

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

No, pardon me; I said the great bulk of agriculturists, not every one.

THE EARL ON KIMBERLEY

said, the great bulk of those who expected to get protection for their animals no doubt desired it. He should be entirely prepared to support the Amendment, and to give very good reasons why it could be introduced into the Measure without endangering the immunity of our cattle from disease.

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

On the Motion, "That this be the title of the Bill "—(Diseases of Animals Act, 1896),

THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT CROSS)

said, that as a promise had been given in the other House that the Act should not come into operation till the 1st of January next, he would move an Amendment to that effect on the Motion for the Third Reading.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.