Sitting of 24 July 1878

MINUTES.
— SELECT COMMITTEE — Indian Native Troops (Transport and Employment Abroad), Mr. Onslow and Sir Patrick O'Brien added.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Jurors Remuneration* [274].
Second Reading—Supreme Court of Judicature (Officers)* [268]; Elders Widows' Fund* [226].
Committee—Contagious Diseases (Animals) [204]—R.P.
Considered as amended—Highways [261]; Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers' Expenses) (Scotland)* [237].
Withdrawn—Married Women's Property Act (1870) Amendment* [55]; Tenant Right (Ulster)* [54].

QUESTION.
  PARLIAMENT—NEW WRIT FOR CLARE COUNTY—PRIVILEGE.

    OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION.
    MR. E. JENKINSsaid, with reference to the question raised on the previous day with regard to the vacancy in County Clare, he wished, as a matter of Privilege, to put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He wished to explain, with regard to the Committee resolved upon last evening to inquire into the circumstances of the holding by Sir Bryan O'Loghlen, the Member for Clare County, of the Attorney Generalship of the Colony of Victoria, that the decision of the Select Committee might affect two or three Members of the House. It was very well known that the hon. Members for Sheffield and Pontefract and himself had held offices under a Colonial Government, at the same time occupying seats in that House, and the decision of the Committee might have an unexpected effect. He, therefore, asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it would be possible so to extend the scope of the inquiry as that the circumstances might be inquired into under which Members of that House representing Colonies were permitted to retain their seats while receiving pay from those Colonies?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I have not had time to consider the matter very fully; but my impression is that it would be better to limit the inquiry of the Committee to the particular point that is before it. I do not think that the inquiry will be likely to raise the question in which the hon. Member is interested; but that is a matter which, if necessary, may be made the subject of inquiry. I think it would be preferable to keep to the objects for which the Committee is appointed, considering the time of the Session?
    MR. E. JENKINSsaid, that it might be suggested to the Committee that there were precedents for persons keeping their seats in that House and still holding office for the Colonies.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Oh, no doubt.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) BILL— [Lords]— [BILL 204.]
  (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 22nd July.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 68 (Communication of Orders from and to Ireland).
  MR. PEASEmoved, as an Amendment, in lines 16 and 17, to omit the words " Order in Council and every." He thought his object would be best explained by reading the clause as it now stood. It was as follows:—
  "With a view to uniformity of action, every Order in Council and every Order of Council made under this Act shall, with all practicable speed, be communicated to the Privy Council, or to the Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council, as the case may be."
  He was of opinion that uniformity of action, although it professed to be the object of the clause, would not be secured by it at all. The Orders of Council and Orders in Council were to be communicated from one country to the other — from Great Britain to Ireland, and from Ireland to Great Britain—but there was nothing in the Bill, so far as he could see, that produced that uniformity of action which was so essential in the Orders of the

  137
  Privy Council in order to insure the successful working of the Act. Consequently, what would be an Order in England would not be an Order in Ireland, and what would be an Order in Ireland would not be an Order in Great Britain. He was sure that his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) would not attribute to him any desire whatever to throw discredit upon the administration in Ireland; but it appeared to him, in this case, that they should have in every possible way the same rules applying to Ireland as to England, and especially the regulations which his hon. Friend opposite proposed to bring in with regard to markets and fairs. Under the clause there would be two jurisdictions, and under those jurisdictions the restrictions applicable to Great Britain, might not be extended to Ireland and the Channel Islands—one of those restrictions being that infected animals should not be permitted to be taken inland unless they were examined and passed by a Privy Council Inspector at the port of debarkation. Having established these very salutary regulations, it might happen in Ireland that there was no inspection at the port of embarkation. He desired to call the attention of the Committee to the very strong evidence given on this point by almost every witness who came from Ireland who was examined before the Select Committee of the House of Lords on the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill during the present Session. Among the witnesses was the hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlow (Mr. Kavanagh), whose opinion upon any question of the kind would carry very great weight with it. In Question 43, the hon. Member was asked—
  "Will you just state whether you approve of the part of the Bill in which there is a distinction made between Ireland and Great Britain?"
  He said, in reply—
  "The first great difference I found in the Bill between Ireland and Great Britain is this —that the working of the Bill is not confided to the same authority in both countries. In England it is intrusted to the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council, in which case we have a highly scientific and experienced authority, working, I may say, under the eye of Parliament, and represented in Parliament by a Minister. I do not want to abuse the institutions of my own country; but, as regards Ireland, I must say I am afraid the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council is a, very
  138
  starved Office, with hardly any Staff, and quite insufficient to carry out the provisions of the Bill; and, save in so far as the Chief Secretary for Ireland is a Minister in that House, they could hardly call it represented in Parliament. Part IV. of the Bill applies to Ireland only; but Part IV. makes the really active part of the Bill, which is Part II., apply to Ireland. Another difference that I observe, which I must say is, I think, a very important difference, is that, though the Act requires that in England the local Inspectors should be professionally qualified veterinary surgeons, it does not require that that should be the case in Ireland."
  Further on the hon. Member was asked by Viscount Cardwell—
  "You are very anxious that the same rules that apply to England should apply to Ireland? —Yes. You would object very much to Ireland being treated as in any sense a foreign country in regard to its relations to England? —Yes."
  He (Mr. Pease) did not wish to weary the House with quotations, because one-half of the evidence in the Blue Book was in the same direction. Mr. Featherstonehaugh, who called himself a very large farmer indeed, was asked—
  "Do you imagine, if the whole of the Veterinary Department of Ireland were put under the English Privy Council in order that we should have qualified practitioners in Ireland, that there would be an objection to pay for those qualified practitioners?—Certainly not; I think it would be a very good thing; and I am certain that they would be willing to pay for it; at all events, the most respectable would."
  Then, again, Mr. Cullen, a landowner and extensive grazier in Ireland, was asked—
  "Is it your feeling that it would be desirable to place the whole subject of the cattle trade in Ireland under the English Privy Council?— Quito so; I should be very glad if that was done."
  Mr. Verdon said—
  "I say that the whole Veterinary Department of Ireland is an insufficient Department. To assimilate the administration of the Veterinary Departments of the two countries thoroughly, the head of both Departments should be here, and he should exercise a general supervision over the conduct of the Irish Department. One advantage of that would be this—that in England we have a Minister responsible to Parliament; in Ireland we have not. We have a Department responsible to nobody, undermanned and underpaid."
  Again, Mr. Gerard, on being asked—
  "Would you have all the regulations put under the English Privy Council?" replied— "Most decidedly.—Do you think it essential that the Inspectors should all be qualified veterinary surgeons?—I do."

  139
  He (Mr. Pease) would not trouble them with any further quotations upon this point. Personally, he was not in favour of having everything done immediately from the Privy Council Office at home, because he felt that it would be placing the authority too far away from the seat of action, It appeared to him that there should be a Privy Council Office in Ireland, worked from the Privy Council Office direct in England, and being independent entirely of the action of the Lord Lieutenant in Council. At the head of an independent branch of the Privy Council in Dublin there might be a competent veterinary surgeon, who thoroughly understood the question, and took a deep interest in the matter, who would be placed in Ireland with a competent staff of Inspectors under him, and who would communicate and act directly with the Privy Council. Such an officer would thoroughly understand the matter, and would be in a position to lay down the best and most proper regulations, and those most suitable for the Irish trade. After all, all the provisions requisite for the stamping out of disease would be readily carried out when they had the full consent and the willing hearts of the people who were to be affected by them. It was under these circumstances that he had been induced to bring the Amendment before the Committee. He had only the one object in view—that they should have one jurisdiction in both countries, and that they should not be liable to have Orders in Council issued by the Lord Lieutenant differing from those issued by the Privy Council in London. If his hon. Friend opposite (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) could not accept his Amendment, which he daresay was somewhat unprofessionally drawn, he thought the Committee ought to require a strong assurance on the part of Her Majesty's Government that it was their intention, having made the clause applicable to both countries, to see that the working of the Act in both countries was identical, so as to insure that the provisions of the Act, were practically carried out by those who understood the interests and working of Irish agriculture. He begged to move the Amendment he had placed on the Paper.
  MR. SYNANsaid, that, of course, he had little or nothing to say in regard to the intentions of his hon. Friend the
  140
  Member for South Durham. He gave credit to every hon. Member of that House for being actuated by the best intentions; but he could not help looking upon the proposition of his hon. Friend as an attempt to pass over the Privy Council of Ireland altogether, and to treat it as if it were a petty corporation, to be dealt with under this measure in the way in which the Privy Council in London might deem most fit. It might be, as the hon. Member doubtless would say, that this was not intended in any way as an insult to the Irish Privy Council; but he contended that that would be the consequence of acceding to the Amendment. If legislation of this kind were to be permitted, it would be better to abolish the Privy Council of Ireland altogether, as had often been attempted on that side of the House, and that it should not be allowed to exist as an Executive Government. According to the argument of his hon. Friend the Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease), the Irish Privy Council was incompetent to carry out the provisions of a common Act of Parliament, and to shape the cattle trade of Ireland even with the Orders in Council before them. But upon what was it that such an argument was founded? It was founded on this. It was admitted that the Orders of the Privy Council could not be applied directly to Ireland, and the hon. Member proposed that outside the Privy Council in Ireland there should be a Privy Council Office—that it should, in fact, be attached to the Privy Council in England; that that Office should judge of the particular circumstances of Ireland, and carry the Bill into effect by special Orders. Now, for what purpose, he would ask, did the Privy Council Office exist in Dublin, if it were not for the purpose of shaping the Orders in Council, and making them suitable to the condition and circumstances of Ireland. It was not necessary, nor did it exist for any other purpose; and if uniformity of action was wanted, that uniformity of action would be as well secured by the present Irish Executive, as by the establishment of a Privy Council Office attached to the Council in London, acting independently of the Irish Council. If all that was required was to adapt the Orders in Council to the peculiar circumstances of Ireland, surely that could be done quite as well

  141
  by the Establishment now in existence as by the creation of a new Office, and without the additional expense which the creation of a new Office would involve. He understood that his hon. Friend the Member for South Durham admitted that an Irishman ought to be at the head of the Privy Council Office in Dublin; and, if so, why not leave things as they were? The proposition of his hon. Friend could only be based upon an argument that the Irish Privy Council Veterinary Department in Dublin was incompetent. If that were not so, it would be just as easy for the Privy Council in Ireland to strengthen it, as for the Privy Council in England. If there was any weakness in the Department, that weakness could be supplied by the Irish Privy Council. He was astonished at an argument such as that, which admitted that an Irishman was to be employed, and yet a separate Office be constituted, passing by the Office in Ireland already existing, and declaring that the Lord Lieutenant and the Council under him were incompetent to shape a clause to meet the circumstances of Ireland. They had been told from the opposite side that they were the bucolic Party, and that they stood, on intellectual grounds, above such low matters as the regulation of the cattle trade. It was said that disease was imported into England from Ireland. What were the facts of the case? What did the Returns show with respect to foot-and-mouth disease and pleuro-pneumonia in Ireland. The Returns from England for 1876 in regard to pleuro-pneumonia showed that in that year there were 5,253 cases in England and Wales. What were the Returns from Ireland? With 1,000,000 cattle more than England and Wales, the cases of pleuro-pneumonia were only 2,379, or less than one-half. They said that Ireland was the cause of bringing disease into England, and yet in this country there was double the amount of disease that existed in Ireland in 1876, and more than double in 1877. This was still more apparent in the Returns of the cases of foot-and-mouth disease. In England, in one month—the month of March—there were 3,170 cases; while the Returns for Ireland for the whole year only showed 174 cases of foot-and-mouth disease. Yet Ireland was a country that required to be governed directly from the Privy Council Office in
  142
  England; the Privy Council of England were to have an Office in Dublin, and the Lord Lieutenant and the Privy Council of Ireland were to be insulted. At the head of the Office in Dublin an Irishman was to be placed; but, at the same time, the Office was not to be treated as an Executive, but it was to be insulted and set aside. He contended that such an insult ought not to be offered from one country to another, except for an object. His hon. Friend the Member for South Durham stated that his intention was to secure uniformity and regularity of action; but his intention rather appeared to be a continuation of the attempt, which seemed to have been adopted, of setting the Irish Members sitting on that side of the House and those sitting on the other side by the ears. He hoped they would refrain from falling into the trap. As long as he remained a Member of the House he would not tolerate such an insult as this, and, under these circumstances, he should resist strenuously the proposal of his hon. Friend. The clause itself professed to provide uniformity of action, and the rules and regulations laid down by Orders in Council were to be adapted to the circumstances of the country by the Privy Council in Dublin. That Privy Council was, in his opinion, quite as competent to carry out the provisions of the measure as any Privy Council Office they could establish in Ireland. A Privy Council Office already existed in Ireland; and if it was weak, let it be strengthened. He had placed an Amendment on the Paper himself, to provide that veterinary surgeons should be appointed by every local authority in Ireland, and selected for that purpose by their knowledge and skill. He would not go into that question now; but it showed, he thought, that he wanted to strengthen the hands of the Department. He wished, however, to do that without insulting the country; whereas the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for South Durham sought to do the same thing by an insult to the country.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he had listened to the arguments of the hon. Member for the county of Limerick (Mr. Synan), and could understand the warmth which had been imported into them. At the same time, he felt that the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease), in moving the

  143
  Amendment, had no wish to insult the sister country, or the Privy Council which formed a part of the Executive of that sister country. [Mr. PEASE: Hear, hear!] He understood that the hon. Member for South Durham hoped to be able by the Amendment to carry out more fully one of the recommendations of the Committee—that, as far as possible, uniformity should prevail in the regulations that were to be put in force throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. But he thought his hon. Friend, on consideration, would see that the Privy Councils, established as they were in both countries, would, undoubtedly, under the Bill have that object in view. He believed that his hon. Friend, on further consideration, would also feel that as long as they continued the government of Ireland in the way it was at present carried out—as long as they had it managed and conducted by a Lord Lieutenant, established there working the system of government under him— so long it would be utterly impossible to separate one particular branch of that Executive, and to deal with it from the Central Authority in London, instead of dealing with it, as they did with all other parts of Ireland, through their deputed Ruler or Governor representing England. The object which the Government had in view in this clause was expressed in the very first words of the clause. It was "with a view to uniformity of action" that they proposed the clause. They believed that the Lord Lieutenant and his Privy Council in Ireland were as anxious to carry out an Act of Parliament as the Privy Council in England could be, and that they would coalesce with the Privy Council here in the working of the Act and in the spirit in which it was conceived and with the object it had in view. He firmly believed that they could as safely trust the Privy Council in Ireland to assimilate these Orders by its own action with the Orders thought to be necessary for the common interests of the United Kingdom, as they could trust the Privy Council in this country so to legislate for Ireland itself. There would be this further advantage in dealing with the Privy Council in Ireland — that they would leave the matter to a body working with them with the same object in view, and the same interests, and with more accurate local knowledge than that
  144
  which would be possessed by the Privy Council itself of the ways and habits of the Irish trade. In the Act passed last Session, it was indicated that uniformity of action was the object they had in view; and, as far as it could be specified in an Act of Parliament, their object now was to guide the action of the Privy Council in Ireland, and with a clear direction on the face of the clause, he could not for a moment conceive that the Privy Council in Ireland would do otherwise than assimilate as far as they possibly could, with a knowledge of the circumstances of their particular country, the Orders of Council issued for carrying out the Bill here with the Orders intended to effect the same object in Ireland—namely, the stamping out of these diseases. He believed that no words could express more clearly the intentions of the Act, and as long as the government of Ireland was carried on under the system which at present prevailed in that country, so long they could not avoid the necessity of trusting to another Department of the State equally capable of carrying out the views of Parliament as their own.
  MR. ARTHUR PEELthought there was a great deal to be said for the Amendment which his hon. Friend the Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease) had proposed, and that if there was not actually the same jurisdiction in both countries, there should be uniformity of jurisdiction. The hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury said the object of the clause was to secure uniformity of action. It was quite obvious that if there was not the same action in Ireland, the whole object of the Act would be vitiated, and that if disease was not effectually stamped out in Ireland, there would be much more danger of getting infected animals from Ireland than from cattle coming from Spain or Portugal. He could not exactly explain his meaning without referring to Clause 70, which might land them in a difficulty in regard to securing uniformity of action between the Privy Council in England and the Privy Council in Ireland. He wished to call the attention of the Committee to Sub-sections ii. and iv. of Clause 70. The clause gave power to the Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council to make such Orders in Council as they might deem fit from time to time—

  145
  "(ii.) For defining their qualifications and powers, and regulating their duties; and (iv.) for extending and applying to any local authority the provisions of Part II. relative to pleuro-pneumonia, as regards the declaration of infected places, and slaughter and compensation, or the provisions of Part II. relative to foot-and-mouth disease, as regards the declaration of infected places."
  It appeared, therefore, that the Privy Council in Ireland need not, unless they thought fit, apply Part II. to Ireland. He saw that the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) shook his head. He would, therefore, let that pass, and admit that the Privy Council in Ireland had power to extend the provisions of the Act or not, as they thought fit; but what became of the next section of the clause—
  "Notwithstanding anything in this Act, the provisions of Part II., mentioned in this section, shall not extend or apply to any local authority, unless and until they are so extended and applied by Order in Council under this section."
  If the Committee would look at the foot-and-mouth disease regulations, on page 9, they would find that these clauses wore extended to the local authorities, and that the bringing into effect the operation of the clauses did not rest altogether with the Privy Council, but the power might also be exercised by the local authority. They might, therefore, find themselves in this position— that while in England it was incumbent on the local authorities to carry out the provisions in regard to foot-and-mouth disease, in Ireland the Privy Council might withhold their authority, and not make it incumbent on the local authorities to carry out the regulations that were absolutely necessary for stamping out foot-and-mouth disease in Ireland. He wished respectfully to call the attention of the Secretary to the Treasury to the position they would be in if they did not have this uniformity of action on the part of the two Privy Councils.
  MR. KAVANAGHsaid, that as the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease) had referred to the evidence which he (Mr. Kavanagh) had given before the Lords' Committee, he wished to say a few words. The hon. Member said that his object was to secure uniformity of action between the two countries; but he (Mr. Kavanagh) hardly knew that the Amendments of the hon. Member were necessary in order to carry out
  146
  that object. It was already the object of the Government that uniformity of action should be secured. He might add that, as far as his evidence went, before the Committee of the House of Lords, as to the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council in Ireland, he had no wish to insult either the Veterinary Department or the Privy Council, or to cast any imputation upon them. He was, however, bound to say this—that unless the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council in Ireland was very materially strengthened, it could not carry out these regulations. That was what his evidence before the Lords' Committee was intended to point out; but he was unable to say whether he expressed himself clearly on the point or not. He said, further, that he thought it would be advisable if the whole administration of the Act were placed under one jurisdiction—namely, the Privy Council. His intention and object in saying that was to show that he thought perfect uniformity of action between the two countries was absolutely necessary.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he had been rather surprised at the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for the county of Limerick (Mr. Synan). His hon. Friend seemed to consider that the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease) desired to delegate the authority of the Government in Ireland to the Privy Council in England. That was scarcely the fact, and the hon. Member for Limerick, if he would look through the evidence given before the Lords' Committee, would find that the hon. Member for South Durham simply quoted the opinion of the Irish witnesses. Indeed, it was the only thing in which the Irish witnesses appeared to be agreed. The hon. Member for South Durham had quoted the evidence of three or four witnesses, some of them graziers and salesmen, who knew a great deal about the cattle trade. Some were very strongly in favour of restriction, and others were not; but one thing they all agreed upon was that they would rather prefer the English Privy Council to the Irish Privy Council. His hon. Friend the Member for South Durham had quoted the evidence of the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Kavanagh), Mr. Featherstonehaugh, Mr. Cullen, and Mr. Verdon. The Duke of Rich-

  147
  mond himself called one witness, Mr. Reynell, a farmer from the county of Westmeath, who farmed about 1,800 statute acres, or about 1,200 Irish acres. He was asked—
  "Do you think it would be better if the English Privy Council undertook the duty?"
  He replied—
  "Certainly, I believe it would. I should like to get men who know something about it, no matter where they came from."
  Stronger than that was the evidence of Mr. Caff, the honorary secretary of the Irish Cattle Trade Association. He was asked—
  "In order to make not only the law, but the administration of the law (which is even more important) identical, I suppose you would agree with many of the witnesses who have come before this Committee, that it would be desirable to place the administration of the law of Ireland as it is in Great Britain, under the Lord President of the Council."
  His answer was very short, but very conclusive. It was, "I would;" and that was what the representative of the Irish Cattle Trade Association distinctly declared. It was a mistake to suppose that the proposition of the hon. Member was directed against the Irish Government. It was, as he understood, made simply and solely because the Irish witnesses thought it was the best way of stamping out the disease. He did not know that he was himself inclined to go as far as his hon. Friend. He thought there would be a good deal of administrative difficulty in substituting the English Privy Council for the Irish Privy Council; but they did want, and they were all agreed that, if they were to stamp out the disease, they must have quite as much action in Ireland as in England. He did not suppose that there could be any doubt about that. This was not only an Irish question, but it was also an English question; because if they were to get rid of disease in England by strong restrictive measures, and especially by applying measures to foreign cattle, they must take care that they did not get the disease imported from Ireland. He was not blaming or condemning what happened in Ireland in regard to disease; but it was a fact that there was a great deal of disease in Ireland. He held in his hand the last Return from the Veterinary Department in Ireland, and it was quite true that
  148
  there was very little foot-and-mouth disease recorded; but there could be years picked out in England when there was very little foot-and-mouth disease, and he did not think when they were passing an Act which was not intended for this year, but for all future, that they could say there was no danger from foot-and-mouth disease. The Irish Re-turn for 1875 showed that there were 31,873 outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in that year. Everyone would admit that pleuro-pneumonia was, after all, a more dangerous disease than foot-and-mouth disease; and these Returns showed that in 1877 the number of outbreaks of pleuro-pneumonia in Ireland was 1,251. Now, that really was a very serious matter, and he found in The Manchester Guardian of yesterday that there had been a case of a serious outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia in Lancashire, in which about 18 cattle had to be killed out of something less than 40, in consequence of the disease having been introduced from Ireland a few weeks ago. It was necessary, therefore, that they should insure strong action in Ireland as well as in England. The suggestion he would venture to make to the Government was this. It would involve them, he thought, in some difficulty to accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for South Durham, which would, in effect, establish one Privy Council for the two Kingdoms. He did not think the words "with a view to" were sufficiently strong. They did not really demand anything; but meant simply that, in order to secure uniformity of action, each side should tell the other what it was doing. The words referred to might, he thought, be replaced by the words " in order to secure uniformity of action " the two Orders were to be communicated. He thought it was quite as likely that the English Privy Council might take advice from the Irish Privy Council, as the Irish from the English Privy Council. He did not wish to do anything that would put one above the other. His hon. Friend the Member for Warwick (Mr. Arthur Peel) showed how very important this matter was, because they did find from the drawing up of the Bill that there was the greatest possible difference between the action of England and Ireland. The action of England was this—that the local authorities were to do certain

  149
  things with regard to pleuro- pneumonia and foot-and-mouth disease. But the last section in the 70th clause distinctly said that the restrictions contained in the clause, with regard to foot-and-mouth disease, were not to apply to any part of Ireland, until the Privy Council in Ireland declared that they should so apply. He did not know whether that clause fully expressed the meaning of the Government; but, if it did, it might so happen that when foot-and-mouth disease made its appearance in any single county or any particular district in Ireland, considerable pressure might be put upon the Irish Government not to enforce the Orders in Council with regard to it, on the ground that whatever might be thought in England of the precautions that should be taken against the spread of that disease, the opinion in Ireland was that the remedy was worse than the disease. If the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease) were willing to accept the words he had suggested in lieu of his own Amendment, he (Mr. W. E. Forster) should propose that he should withdraw his Amendment, in order that the words "in order to secure" should be substituted at the commencement of the clause, for "with the view to secure" uniformity of action.
  MR. KING-HARMANsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. W. E. Forster), in endeavouring to show that a large amount of cattle disease existed in Ireland, had been compelled to go back as far as the year 1875 for his figures. It was true that in that year there had been a sudden outbreak of cattle disease in Ireland. In 1874, there had been very little of that disease in that country; but, in the following year, there had undoubtedly been a singular outbreak of it; but, by the wise measures of precaution and restriction taken by the Irish Privy Council, the extent of the disease had been brought down to its present limit of 150 cases per annum. No one could doubt the desirability of establishing uniformity of action in this matter in the two countries; but that uniformity should be attained by a system of levelling up and not of levelling down. He maintained that the action of the Privy Council in Ireland had, for years past, been far better and more successful than that of the Privy Council in this country.
  150
  If we had adopted the Irish system, we should not have so constant an outbreak of the foot-and-mouth disease as we had experienced, to the great loss of our cattle breeders. It was owing to the very stringent regulations that had been adopted in Ireland, and to the very careful manner in which they had been enforced, that cattle plague had never made its appearance in that country at all. He agreed with the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan), that the Veterinary Staff in Ireland was exceedingly weak. That, however, was a reason for strengthening it, and not for transferring the powers of the Irish Privy Council to that of England.
  MR. COGANsaid, that as a Member of the Irish Privy Council, it was not his province to eulogize the action which had been taken by them with regard to cattle disease in that country; but he thought that the defence of their conduct might be founded on the results which had followed from it. The hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. King-Harman) had pointed to the most important fact that owing to the careful precautions which the Irish Privy Council had taken with respect to the importation of cattle, the cattle plague had never reached that country at all. He thought that the Irish Privy Council had not done anything that warranted their conduct in this matter being called in question, and he was satisfied that they were as sincerely desirous of putting down cattle disease of all forms as anybody else could be. He agreed entirely with the views of those who thought that there ought to be complete uniformity of action on both sides of the Channel, especially with regard to the regulations for the importation of cattle. If Ireland, England, and Scotland, were to be treated as a united country, uniformity of restrictions was most desirable; but that was all that ought to be required. Ireland had no right to ask for exceptional privileges in the matter; but, on the other hand, no additional restrictions should be placed upon her. He therefore hoped to receive an assurance from Her Majesty's Government that it was not intended to place an additional restriction upon the movement of cattle in that country, in addition to the local restriction by requiring inspection of Irish cattle at the port of

  151
  either embarkation or debarkation. So long as the same regulations with regard to isolation and disinfection were adopted in Ireland as were enforced in England and Scotland, it would be most unfair to the former country to require such inspection at ports. The Duke of Richmond and Gordon was reported to have stated that an Irish county was to be treated on exactly the same footing as an English county by this Bill. That, however, would not be the case, if, in addition to the local regulations, inspection at the port of embarkation and debarkation were enforced. When the Royal Agricultural Society of Ireland passed a resolution in favour of the Bill, it was on the most positive understanding that the three, countries were to be treated on a footing of perfect equality in this matter, and that inspection of any kind of Irish cattle at the ports was to cease, and that the local regulations were to be the same for all. He wanted to know why, if the local restrictions were the same in Ireland and in England, an additional restriction was to be enforced with regard to Irish cattle, which were to be conveyed by steamer on a voyage which occupied four hours only, which was not enforced with regard to Scotch cattle sent by railway from Aberdeen to London? "What difference could in justice be made between them? If the local regulations were as carefully framed for the two countries as they ought to be, he could not see why inspection should be enforced with regard to the cattle of one, when it was not required with regard to the cattle of the other. It was only just that the Committee should know of the view which had been taken by the Royal Agricultural Society of Ireland on this subject; and he now wished to ask the Government to state distinctly whether it was their intention that inspection of cattle at the ports was to be continued? The remarks which had fallen from hon. Members in reference to the weakness of the Veterinary Staff in Ireland by no means justified the transference of the powers now exercised by the Privy Council of Ireland to that of London. He granted that that Department required to be strengthened and improved; but it was the business of the Irish Government to strengthen and improve it; and it would be most unfortunate if, under
  152
  the provisions of this measure, an attempt were made to effect further centralization with regard to Irish institutions. He should view with great concern the adoption of any course in reference to this question which would be dangerous not only to the popularity of this Bill, but also to the good feeling which they were all anxious to see maintained between one country and the other.
  MR. CLARE READsaid, that he was no particular friend of Privy Council regulations either in this country or in Ireland; but it had been proved before the Committee of 1873 that the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council at Dublin was not only under-manned, but that it was under-paid. He wished to see that Department strengthened and reformed. It was almost unconstitutional to suppose that the Irish Privy Council could not properly manage their own affairs. He should venture to point out that there was an immense difference between the local authorities in Ireland and in England; and also, of course, a large distinction between the local customs of the two countries. That was a fact that should be taken into consideration in carrying out this Act, because, otherwise, the Privy Council Orders for one country might be made to apply directly to both. For his part, representing a county which was more indebted to Ireland than any other for their store cattle, amounting to some 50,000 a-year, which she supplied, he was grateful to Irish Members for the assistance they had given in forwarding the Bill. No doubt it was the wish of the Irish dealer to export, as it was that of the English dealer to import, healthy cattle, because they obtained a better price for them.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, that he had an Amendment on the Paper to the following effect: —"That the Privy Council should be bound to issue corresponding rules for England and Ireland as far as they should think necessary for securing uniformity of action;" and as its purport was similar to that of the ton. Member for South Durham, he thought that the two Amendments had better be considered together. The Castle Government were to be congratulated upon having secured so warm a supporter as they had done in the person of the hon. Member for Limerick

  153
  (Mr. Synan), one of the Home Rule Members. His impression had been that the Home Rule Members were not so fond of that memorial and badge of conquest—the Castle Government. As a rule, the hon. Member did not give his hearty support to that Government; but now he was loudest in defence of it. Although he (Mr. Anderson) himself did not greatly admire the Castle Government, still he thought that they should be congratulated upon having obtained the services of so able, enthusiastic, and energetic a defender. The only excuse that the Government and the supporters of the Bill had for putting such stringent restrictions upon the foreign trade was that they had given their promise that equally stringent restrictions should be placed upon the home trade in order that cattle disease might be altogether got rid of. But the moment restrictions were placed upon the Irish cattle trade, and Irish Members began to feel where the shoe pinched, they began to press for an exemption of fairs and markets from the operation of the Bill.
  MR. SYNANsaid, that he rose to explain. His observations with regard to fairs and markets applied equally to England as to Ireland.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, that what the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan) had urged was that the exemption should be extended to fairs and markets, and he had not attributed to him language intended to confine the exemption to fairs and markets in Ireland. What he had said was that Irish Members were the first to feel the shoe pinch, and were the first to propose that fairs and markets should be exempted from these restrictions, while Scotch and English Members had not made such a claim. He believed that Irish Members were trusting to the well-known laxity of the Castle Government to have the provisions of this measure worked generally in their own favour. As the Bill was drawn, it was utterly impossible to secure uniformity of action in the two countries, and it was upon that ground that he had placed upon the Paper an Amendment of a similar effect to that of the hon. Member for South Durham. It was necessary for the preservation of English and Scotch stock that uniformity of action between the two countries should be maintained, or else that Ire-
  154
  land should be treated as a foreign country; and in order that that uniformity of action should be maintained, it was necessary that the action should be controlled be some central authority. There was no separate authority proposed for Scotland, and he was sure that keeping Ireland separate would prove to be a mistake. He hoped that the hon. Member for South Durham would go to a division upon his Amendment, and that greater stringency would be adopted in order to secure uniformity of action between the two countries.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he rose to appeal to the hon. Member for South Durham to agree to withdraw his Amendment, on the understanding that Her Majesty's Government would accept the substitution of the words proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) in place of those at the commencement of the clause. He was quite willing to accept those words, as being calculated to insure uniformity of regulations throughout the United Kingdom. He was sure that if the Amendment suggested by the right hon. Gentleman was calculated to effect the object they all had at heart, both the Government and the Irish Members would be only too happy to accept it. The necessity of continuing a separate Privy Council in Ireland was the natural consequence of maintaining a separate form of government in Ireland, and that was an answer to the observation of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson). The hon. Member, when he made his remarks, should have borne in mind the fact that Scotland was not ruled by a Lord Lieutenant, as the Representative of Her Majesty. When the present form of government in Ireland was abolished, that would be time to talk of having one Privy Council for the two countries. In the meantime, it was necessary to indicate by this Bill that the Privy Council in Ireland should be at liberty to adopt such regulations as would secure uniformity of action between the two countries.
  MR. PEASEsaid, that in proposing his Amendment he had no other object than to secure uniformity of action between the two countries, which he thought was essential to the prosperity of the Irish cattle trade. Everyone

  155
  knew of the wonderful increase which had occurred of late years in both the quality and weight of Irish cattle coming into this country, and it was of the greatest importance to England and Scotland that every means should be adopted that would secure the importation of healthy Irish cattle. He was quite ready to accept the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) in place of his own, because he believed that it would fully meet the views of hon. Members who thought with him. He, therefore, asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he thought that it had been clearly established that some sort of discretion should be left to the Lord Lieutenant and the Privy Council of Ireland to act in this matter. He, however, did not think that the Amendment suggested by the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) met the exigencies of the case. Therefore, if the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease) were permitted to withdraw his Amendment, he (Mr. Chamberlain) should move to add at the end of the clause, the following words:—
  "And all such Orders shall be extended to Ireland in all cases where, in the opinion of the Lord Lieutenant and of the Privy Council in Ireland, they can be properly applied to Ireland."
  By the Amendment, while allowing some discretion to the Lord Lieutenant and to the Privy Council in Ireland, he wished to give an indication in the Bill that it was the opinion of Parliament that uniformity of action between the two countries should be maintained. Hon. Members were, doubtless, aware that in the evidence given on the subject before the Committee of the House of Lords, there was this important distinction—that, whereas all the English witnesses were of opinion that it was necessary to take the greatest precautions to stamp out the foot-and-mouth disease, the Irish witnesses treated the matter as one of comparative indifference, and desired that the subject should not be dealt with in the Bill.
  MR. SYNANsaid, he wished to explain that he had never said that no interference should be allowed with regard to the foot-and-mouth disease.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, that the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan) was in a great hurry to interrupt. He had never charged him with stating anything of the sort. What he had said was that the Irish interests before the Lords' Committee, and the agricultural interest, which was represented by the hon. Member for Limerick, had urged that the foot-and-mouth disease should be let alone as far as legislation was concerned. In England, the regulations with regard to pleuro-pneumonia and to foot-and-mouth disease were to be placed upon an equal footing; and, therefore, Ireland should be treated in the same way. The Committee had been asked not to fall into a trap set for them. Hon. Members opposite would, perhaps, not fall into the evident trap set for them by permitting the stringent regulations with regard to foot-and-mouth disease which were to be enforced in this country to be relaxed in the case of Ireland. In Gloucester they had been obliged to prohibit the importation of Irish cattle, owing to the prevalence of foot-and-mouth disease amongst them. In these circumstances, therefore, if the hon. Member for South Durham withdrew his Amendment, he should press his own.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, after what had fallen from Irish Members in the course of the debate, he did not think that there was any difference in point of principle between them and the English and Scotch Members. What they all wanted was that England and Ireland should be treated exactly in the same way. What they wanted to secure in this country was that the regulations should be so perfect that cattle disease should be localized, and not allowed to spread throughout the country, and that was all that was wished to be done in the case of Ireland. He hoped that before the Bill was finished, something would be inserted in it which would insure that the Irish Veterinary Staff should be strengthened.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, that the clause dealt with one of the most essential features of the Bill. The part of Scotland which he had the honour to represent complained, not so much of the importation of disease through foreign cattle, as of the spread of disease brought into the country by Irish store cattle. He did not mean to contend, for a mo-

  157
  ment, that there was more disease in Ireland than in England or in Scotland. He did not put much value upon the statistics offered by the Privy Council, because those statistics depended greatly upon the stringency with which the regulations were enforced. What really took place was this. In Ireland—and farmers would, in many cases, do the same thing in England and Scotland— when a farmer found that one or two of his stock were affected with disease, he at once sent the remainder to market, and they, being bought by an enterprizing cattle dealer, were sent on board a steamer with other cattle to England or Scotland, probably carrying infection through the whole of them. It was most important, therefore, that there should be inspection at the Irish port of embarkation. In the North of Scotland the value of Irish store cattle had fallen £1 per head in consequence of the suspicion that attached to them that they were infected. The county which he had. the honour to represent depended more than any other in Scotland on Irish cattle; and therefore it was that they were specially anxious that they should have the Irish cattle trade put into a more healthy condition than it was at present. He knew that Scotch farmers would be willing to pay £1 per head more for Irish cattle than they now did, if they had more confidence in their healthy condition. He was surprised to hear the observation of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Gogan), who was a Member of the Privy Council of Ireland, that inspection at the port of embarkation should cease. He considered it one of the great advantages that the cattle should be inspected before being put on board the steamer. If diseased cattle were to be mixed with healthy cattle on board steamers, the value of the whole cargo would be prejudiced and depreciated. If he were interested in Ireland, he should insist on the same rule being carried out in both countries—the cattle going from England to Ireland should be examined at the port of embarkation, and the cattle going from Ireland to England should be examined in the same manner. With reference to the observations which had been made regarding cattle from the North of Scotland, he wished to point out the difference between the North of Scotland and Ireland. He might say that the whole of the cattle
  158
  that came from the North of Scotland to England came as fat cattle to be slaughtered; or if not as fat cattle, certainly not as ordinary store cattle, but as special breeding animals, and with regard to them there was a special disinfection of trucks to insure their healthy arrival at the place of destination. He hoped the Government, when they indicated their policy with regard to inspection at the port of embarkation, would be able to make such a satisfactory announcement as would shorten the discussion on Clause 70.
  MR. BIGGARsaid the Amendment suggested by the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) would have no practical effect, and it seemed to him that the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease), in accepting it, was very easily pleased. However, several questions had been raised as to Irish cattle and foreign cattle, to which it was his duty, as an Irish Member, to reply. All the Irish witnesses before the House of Lords, as far as he could remember, showed that any restrictions with regard to foot-and-mouth disease would do more harm than the disease itself. That was the practical effect of the evidence, and he entirely agreed with it. He was of opinion that foot-and-mouth disease should have been left entirely out of the Bill. Professor Gamgee said there should be no restrictions at all, and Professor Brown said they might stamp out the disease after a considerable time, but that the people would never submit to the restrictions required, and the result would be that the disease would be as bad as ever. Professor Gamgee, again, said that there were three zones of the disease—namely, in the mountains, in the lowlands, and in the town districts. In the mountains there was less disease, in the lowlands there was a middle quantity, and in the towns a greater quantity. The result of his (Mr. Biggar's) experience was entirely in the same direction, and he believed that Ireland was a healthier country than either Scotland or England, for the reason that the conditions of health were much better. For instance, in London, the disease was constantly in existence, and to make the same restrictions in all parts of Ireland that existed in the neighbourhood of London would simply be to throw obstacles in the way, and would do no good, One

  159
  reason against the Amendment was that they knew, as a matter of fact, that a constant system of intriguing was going on with the Privy Council in London, and undue influence was brought to bear, in order to obtain a relaxation of the regulations. Now in Ireland they wished to avoid that evil. If influence was to be used, they thought it more desirable that the Irish cattle dealers should have the opportunity of using their influence with the Privy Council in Dublin, without being put to the trouble of coming over to a foreign body. That was, in his opinion, a very important matter. Of course, if the Bill was carried in the manner proposed by the hon. Member for South Durham, the very first thing the promoters of the Bill would do would be to urge, in vehement terms, the Privy Council to make the most stringent regulations on the cattle in Ireland—as stringent as against the cattle on the Continent. He would, therefore, oppose that or any similar Amendment. With regard to the question raised by the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay), as to cattle suffering from pleuro-pneumonia and foot-and-mouth disease being imported from Ireland, he did not think the hon. Member had any right to talk about pleuro-pneumonia. Pleuro-pneumonia did not exist at all on the farms in Ireland. There was more of that disease in two cities in Scotland—namely, the cities of Glasgow and Edinburgh— than there was in the whole of Ireland. He had it on the best authority that this lung disease existed extensively in Glasgow, and the same thing applied to all large towns; and if these extreme restrictions were to be applied to the whole of Ireland, the farmers would have a right to complain.
  MR. J. HOLMSsaid, he understood the statement of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) to be that pleuro-pneumonia existed to a small extent in Ireland; and that, therefore, there ought to be no restrictions in that country with regard to that disease. In his opinion, that was not the case, because the statistics showed that pleuro-pneumonia existed to a great extent there. In 1874, there were 829 cases; in 1875, 440; in 1876, 424; and in 1877, 2,379, out of which 1,984 had to be slaughtered.
  MR. RODWELLsaid, they were now dealing with one of the most important
  160
  parts of the Bill. The experience which he had had, living in a part of England where they had a great number of Irish cattle brought, and speaking from personal observation, he was convinced that the Bill would be a nullity, and legislation a farce, unless they put Irish cattle on the same terms as English cattle. He could quite understand how it was that the evidence, which he had thought it his duty to read, was given by one of the spokesmen of Ireland with reference to foot-and-mouth disease—in Ireland they did not look upon that disease as so great a matter as they did in England. Their business was chiefly to export store beasts, and the effect of the disease on store animals was not nearly the same as on fat and dairy animals, and that would account for the view they took of the foot-and-mouth disease. But knowing the numbers of animals coming to this country from Ireland, and the amount of disease imported into England from Ireland, he trusted that the Government would introduce some fair and reasonable Amendment which would have the effect of putting Ireland on the same terms as England. Unless that was done, he thought that all attempts to stamp out this disease and get rid of it in Great Britain would be futile.
  THE O'CONOR DONsaid, he would venture to point out that the proposal before the Committee was that the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease) be withdrawn. He did not think that any hon. Member objected to that withdrawal. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) proposed to make another Amendment later on; and he ventured to submit that they should agree to the withdrawal of the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Durham, and then discuss the proposal of the hon. Member for Birmingham.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERmoved to omit the words "with a view to" at the beginning of the clause, in order to insert the words "in order to secure."
  SIR HENEY SELWIN-IBBETSON: Agreed.
  Amendment agreed to; words substituted,
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, he did not wish to press the Amendment which he had on the Paper, as he believed his object would be much better met by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain).
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINmoved to add, at the end of the clause, the following words:—
  "And all such Orders shall be extended to Ireland in all cases where, in the opinion of the Lord Lieutenant and the Privy Council, they can be properly applied to Ireland."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he could not help thinking that the Amendment would precisely defeat the object the hon. Member had in view. It would suggest to the Lord Lieutenant and the Privy Council that there were cases in which Ireland might be exceptionally treated, and the result would be much less uniformity of action.
  THE O'CONOR DONsaid, he quite concurred in the view taken by the right hon. Member for Bradford. The words were not at all desirable, and, if adopted, it would be necessary that there should be reciprocity; to carry out which he would propose that all Orders adopted by the Privy Council in Ireland should be extended to England.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that what they really wanted was that as far as practicable there should be uniformity and reciprocity between the respective Privy Councils as respected the diseases scheduled under that Act. They had extended the definition of the term disease, so that it included any disease; and by the Amendment which the hon. Baronet proposed to introduce in the Schedule, they were going to enact that there should be slaughter except in certain cases where there was no reason to suppose that in the countries from which the cattle came disease was widely prevalent. It was not only necessary that the foreign countries should have laws designed to prevent disease; but it was also necessary, as a matter of fact, that disease should not be widely prevalent. Now, Ireland was in a different position from England, had a different Government and a different Privy Council; and, therefore, there existed altogether different rules. In Ireland disease was widely preva-
  162
  lent, especially pleuro-pneumonia, as had been shown by the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. J. Holms); and there was great difference of opinion as to foot-and-mouth disease, in regard to which many thought that no special measures ought to be taken. They were not to admit cattle from foreign countries, even where there were good laws, if much disease prevailed, yet from Ireland cattle were allowed to come in. What he wished to secure was that Ireland, for the purposes of that Act, should be so far as was consistent with the differences of local administration, under the same Government for the purpose of preventing disease; and he thought that instead of adopting the Government Amendment with regard to foreign diseases, it would be desirable to place Ireland under the same government as England.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he hoped the Committee would accept the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain's) Amendment, which must commend itself to the common sense and fair play of all men. They could not get rid of the Privy Council in Ireland, they could not make a nullity of the Lord Lieutenant, and what the hon. Member for Birmingham suggested was, that this Bill should contain an instruction to the Government of Ireland, that unless they could take upon themselves the responsibility of making exceptions in certain circumstances, the same rule should be applied as in England.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that this proposal was a modified form of Home Rule, and he was surprised that it should emanate from the hon. Member for Birmingham. It proceeded on the assumption that no communication took place between the Privy Council of England and the Privy Council of Ireland. Now, the object of the Bill, so far as he could understand, was to protect both countries against disease; but inasmuch as there was a large importation of Irish cattle to England—and no one would regret the diminution of that importation more than he should so long as it was healthy—the English, having suffered severely from the importation of disease from Ireland, sought some protection for their healthy cattle. He could not admit, for one moment, that there was such an absence of communication between the Privy Council of

  163
  England and the Privy Council of Ireland as the hon. Member appeared to suppose.
  MR. PEASEsaid, he hoped the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) would withdraw his Amendment. Whilst, at first sight, it was very much in accordance with the Amendment he had himself proposed, he concurred in the view taken by the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), that it would weaken the clause; because it pointed out at once that there was to be a distinction and a difference between the administration of the two countries. They had already inserted the words "in order to secure uniformity of action," and that, he apprehended, would be sufficient to attain the object in view.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he agreed with his right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. W. E. Forster), and with the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease). He really believed that the words proposed to be introduced by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) would practically weaken the clause as now amended. What did those words imply? Not that the Lord Lieutenant should have a presumption in favour of adopting all the English Orders in Council; but that he should select such as, after consideration, he might consider applicable to the particular facts of Ireland. It started by suggesting that all the Orders were not applicable. He would rather leave it to the discretion of the Lord Lieutenant and the Privy Council of Ireland, under the evident instruction contained in the first words of the clause, to carry out in Ireland generally the Orders issued in England than suggest that only some of those Orders should be followed. If he were anxious to limit the clause, he should vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Birmingham; but being anxious that uniformity should prevail, he should urge the Committee to stand by the clause as it now stood.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, that all the Members of the Committee, or nearly all, were so evidently animated by the same desire that he should not be justified in pressing his Amendment against the opinion of the majority. Before withdrawing it, however, he should make an appeal to the hon. Member for
  164
  South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) as to whether he was quite certain that the object which they all had in view would not be better secured by the Amendment. He did not, he confessed, see much in the objection of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster). Throughout this Bill, while much had been left to the discretion of the English Privy Council, they had been guided as to the mind of the House. And that was all he asked for with regard to the Irish Privy Council. He assumed that the Irish Privy Council would honestly endeavour to carry out what they saw to be the wish of Parliament; but, especially with regard to the important statement made by the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), he thought it would be desirable to give the Irish Privy Council such an indication as could not be mistaken, because the hon. Member had said that there had been in the past, and would be in the future, active and strenuous exertions made to influence the minds of the Privy Council. [Mr. SYNAN: No, no!] The hon. Member for Limerick was interrupting him again, and appeared to know not only what he had himself said, but also what everybody else had said. The hon. Member for Cavan stated that strenuous exertions would be made by Irishmen upon their local Privy Council to relax the regulations in Ireland with regard to the foot-and-mouth disease. He should have thought it to be to the interest of English farmers to secure some each direction to the Irish Privy Council as he now proposed; but if it was the opinion of the hon. Member for South Norfolk that the clause would be better without the addition, he would leave it alone.
  MR. CLARE READsaid, he was quite satisfied with the clause as amended by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford.
  THE O'DONOGHUEsaid, he hoped the Amendment would not be withdrawn. It certainly commended itself to him. It proposed to leave the Privy Council in Ireland a just discretion.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he hoped the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) would not withdraw his Amendment. The reasons assigned for its withdrawal were, to his mind, the very grounds and reasons for its

  165
  retention. The Privy Council in England had a certain power of making rules and regulations, and they represented the elastic power of this Act. They could make rules or dispense with them. But the rules they made were applicable to Great Britain, and it might be that, in the opinion of the Privy Council in Ireland, some of them might not be applicable to the circumstances of Ireland. Why should there not be a power with the Privy Council in Ireland to meet such a case? He hoped the Amendment would not be withdrawn, but would be accepted in a spirit of fair play; and, if accepted in that spirit, he was quite satisfied that the Government of the noble Duke the Lord Lieutenant and the Privy Council in Ireland would not make any unfair relaxation whatever, but that they would be governed by the spirit of the Act, and would only make such modifications of the English practice as were absolutely necessary. He hoped his hon. Friend would uphold his Amendment.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, that after the opinion expressed by the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) he desired to withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he thought he was called on to reply very shortly to some of the observations which had been made. He must have expressed himself very incorrectly, if the hon. Member for Birmingham's representation of what he had said was the correct one. The hon. Member had mis-stated entirely, not what he did say, perhaps, but certainly what he intended to say. What he intended to say was that the Privy Council would be urged in a vehement manner to impose unreasonable restrictions on Ireland. If it were attempted to impose unreasonable restrictions in respect of Irish cattle, it would be desirable that the people should have an opportunity of being heard before the authorities in Dublin, with a view of convincing them of their unreasonableness.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.

  Local Authorities.
  Clause 69 (Constitution of local authorities; lands and borrowing) agreed to.
  Clause 70 (Provisions applicable by Order to local authorities).
  MR. W. E. FORSTERmoved to omit Sub-section iv., as follows:—
  "For extending and applying to any local authority the provisions of Part II. relative to pleuro-pneumonia as regards the declaration of infected places, and slaughter, and compensation; or the provisions of Part II. relative to foot-and-mouth disease, as regards the declaration of infected places."
  He did not know why this sub-section had been introduced. If the Committee looked back to Clause 65, they would see that it said Part II. should apply to Ireland, except where it was said it should not; and if they looked again to Clause 67, they would see it said that the powers of Part II. conferred on the Privy Council should be conferred on the Irish Privy Council. The object of Clause 70 appeared to be to give further powers to the Irish Privy Council, and he could understand that the first three sub-sections might be wanted on account of the different position of the Inspectors; but he did not see that Sub-section iv. was required at all. It appeared to him that every power that was possessed by the English Privy Council with regard to local authorities, with regard to pleuro-pneumonia and foot-and-mouth disease, was already given to the Irish Privy Council by the clauses which he had mentioned, and the retention of this sub-section in the clause might only tend to obscurity.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, that before the question of the omission of Sub-section iv. was put from the Chair, he had to move to leave out an earlier sub-section— namely, Sub-section iii.—
  "For fixing the periods for which they shall be appointed, and their remuneration and allowances."
  These were matters which ought properly to come within the province of the local authorities, seeing that they were to be the paymasters. He would admit that if the remuneration and allowances of the Inspectors were to be provided out of money to be voted by Parliament, it would then be proper that the Privy Council should fix them as proposed by the clause. Such, however, was not the case. The local authorities were to be the paymasters, and he thought, therefore, that they should fix, not only the terms of the engagement,

  167
  but the amount of remuneration. The local authorities, being the guardians of the ratepayers' money, had a primary right to the distribution of it, and, in addition, they were acquainted with the circumstances of localities. They knew, too, the sort of man they were likely to get for a certain price in their own neighbourhood. Under all these circumstances, he did not think the subsection should be allowed to stand as it was. They knew, as a rule, that people were very liberal with other people's money, and he was disposed to think that larger salaries would be paid by the Privy Council than would be at all necessary.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 38, line 7, to leave out from the word "duties," to the word "allowances," in line 9, inclusive.—(Mr. Biggar.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  SIR HENKY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he could not agree to the Amendment which had been moved by the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar). The object and desire of the Committee was, he believed, to strengthen, as far as possible, the Veterinary Department in Ireland, and especially that branch of it which was referred to in this subsection—namely, the Inspectors to be employed under the Act: He could conceive nothing more likely to weaken that branch of the Department than to allow the districts to starve, if he might so call it, the Inspectors who would have to carry out the Act. For these reasons, he hoped the Committee would adhere to the sub-section as it stood.
  MR. BIGGAR, begged to call the attention of the Committee to the system which was established for England. He really could not see why a difference should be made in the case of Ireland. By Clause 40, it was enacted that every local authority in England should, from time to time, appoint so many Inspectors as they thought necessary, for the purposes of the Act, and should assign to them their duties, salaries, allowances, &c.. What he contended for was this—that the local authorities in Ireland were quite as competent and trustworthy as similar bodies in England, and he could not see on what ground the authority and power of the former
  168
  should be so much curtailed as compared with the latter. The Irish Poor Law Guardians thought it a great grievance that in very many instances they were forced to pay much higher salaries than they considered necessary. Now, those proposals altogether weakened the power of the local authority, and put them into a very invidious position, in which they could not exercise any control or influence over their own officers.
  MR. SYNANwished to call the attention of the hon. Member who had moved the Amendment (Mr. Biggar) to the fact that the clause gave power to the local authority to appoint an Inspector, and that that Inspector must be a veterinary surgeon. The Government appeared to have had a difficulty in dealing with the question in Ireland; and, therefore, the power of the Privy Council, in particular cases, to over-ride the local authority in Ireland, might become necessary. For instance, if the local authority should refuse to appoint a professional Inspector, where it was in their power, power ought to be given to the Privy Council to over-ride the decision, and to appoint a professional Inspector where they could find a proper one. He, therefore, thought the hon. Member for Cavan would see that it was absolutely necessary for the Privy Council to have that power; but he remarked that the whole question would be opened again on his Amendment to the 71st clause.
  MR. CHAMBEELAINasked the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury, whether the words of the sub-section were not supererogatory, as there were words in a previous sub-section which rendered them unnecessary?
  MR. BIGGARexplained, that the question of the Government appointing a veterinary surgeon was not referred to in the sub-section. The sub-section to which he objected did not propose to make any qualification, but only fixed the period for which the Inspectors were appointed, and the amount of their remuneration and allowances. He objected to the clause, because the Lord Lieutenant might appoint an Inspector with a special object, and the appointment might continue for a very long time after the object of it had ceased.
  THE O'CONOR DONsaid, he must confess that there was a great deal of force in what had fallen from the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar). It

  169
  seemed to him that the Bill and the clause were really making great distinctions between England and Ireland, and as they were told it was a Bill for securing uniformity, he confessed he could not understand on what ground the difference was made. All the local appointments in England under Clause 40, whether they were of veterinary surgeons or not, were to be made by the local authorities, and their salaries were to be fixed by the local authorities. But when they came to Clause 70, dealing with Ireland, all those points were to be fixed by the Privy Council. The hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan) proposed in the following clause an Amendment which would make the two countries, to a great extent, similar, with regard to the question of veterinary Inspectors. It would certainly be unreasonable, on the ground of uniformity, to leave the clause now under discussion as it was.
  MR. GORSTthought the hon. Member for Birmingham was perfectly right in his suggestion. The Committee had already given the Privy Council in Ireland the power to determine the terms and conditions upon which Inspectors were appointed.
  THE O'CONOR DONsaid, that the Committee had done nothing of the sort, as they had not passed a single section of the clause. It might be that it would also be necessary to make an alteration in Sub-section ii.; but it was practically in the power of the Committee to leave out the whole of the clause, to postpone it, or treat it in any other way they thought fit.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERreally almost thought that the Secretary to the Treasury would promote getting on with the Bill if he were to postpone the clause. He did not see why the clause at all was wanted. If, however, it should be wanted in the Bill, the hon. Baronet might bring it up again on the Report. The Privy Council had already given power to carry out the scheme by Section 67.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he must point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the clause, having been already amended, could not be postponed.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 47; Noes 102: Majority 55.—(Div. List, No. 233.)
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYrose to move an Amendment in Sub-section iv., when—
  THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford had already proposed a Motion on those words, and the Question would have been put, but that the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) had proposed an earlier Amendment. It would now be his duty to put the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, which was to leave out Sub-section iv.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONconfessed that he had had some doubts in his mind since the suggestion which had been made by the right hon. Member for Bradford, as to whether there was such an absolute necessity for the words in that sub-section. He should not like at the moment to pledge himself that no such necessity existed; but what he proposed was that they should withdraw the sub-section now from the Bill, and if he found, on consideration, that a necessity for it existed, he would ask leave of the Committee to re-introduce the words on the Report, and to justify them by the statement he would then make. He only wished to guard himself, should he find it absolutely necessary to re-introduce them; but, on the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, and after carefully reading the clause, he was not prepared to say, at that moment, that the case was not provided for in other parts of the Bill.
  MR. KAVANAGHconceived the object of the Amendment to be simply to remove the discretion from the hands of the Privy Council, and he asked the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) to pause before he accepted the suggestion.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that Subsection iv. stood upon rather different grounds from Sub-section ii. Sub-section iv. would have the effect of preventing the provision relating to pleuro-pneumonia from applying to any part of Ireland without the express direction of the Privy Council. He did not think that would be very advantageous; but he believed the Committee were quite satisfied with the proposal of the Secretary to the Treasury.
  MR. BUTTsaid, as he understood the ' two sub-sections, their effect would be this. In England, there were certain provisions in the Bill which took effect

  171
  by the Bill itself. They imposed certain duties upon the local authorities and upon Inspectors the moment cattle disease broke out. If those sub-sections were struck out, the law would be the same in Ireland. If they remained in, he did not think there could be a doubt that the clause would be a dead letter in Ireland, unless the Privy Council chose to send down special instructions. It was a very different thing to say that the Privy Council was to control the action of the Inspectors. That they could do, both in England and in Ireland; but there was a large portion of the Bill which would be a dead letter, if the sub-sections were not left out.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, the real question was, whether the Bill was going to be made compulsory in Ireland as it was in England? Under the Bill, so far as they had proceeded, the Privy Council had certain discretionary powers as to extending provisions for dealing with disease. But there were in the Bill itself certain imperative duties, unqualified by the discretion of the Privy Council, laid upon Inspectors, in the first instance, and local authorities. Every local authority was bound to declare a place where pleuro-pneumonia existed an infected place, and they were also bound to slaughter animals infected with pleuro-pneumonia. There were some similar provisions with regard to foot-and-mouth disease which were also compulsory; but if the sub-sections were allowed to stand in the Bill, those provisions would not be compulsory in Ireland as they were in England, unless the Privy Council so determined. Upon that point, he agreed with what the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) had just stated, and he thought there ought to be no doubt or hesitation in the mind of the Committee with regard to it. If there was anything essential in the Bill at all, it was that the regulations and restrictions which were absolutely compulsory in England should also be compulsory in Ireland.
  MR. PELLthought the remarks of the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) were hardly complimentary to the Committee. He had repeated, not quite so well as the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Butt), the object of his remarks, and a part of it almost in the very words. Now, he had hardly made up his mind yet whe-
  172
  ther the hon. Member for Forfarshire was opposing the Bill, and joining with those who were throwing up a barrier to check its progress or not. He was inclined to think, from the observations he had just heard, that he was doing so; but he was hardly doing it in a fair and open manner. Some of his remarks made at the outset, he must believe were made with the object of improving the Bill and advancing it; but when the hon. Member really came to a repetition of the remarks made by the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Butt), which were certainly pertinent, when he got up immediately after the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and repeated what he had said, only toned down and diluted by an amount of Scotch paraphrase and parenthesis—
  MR. BIGGARrose to Order, asking whether it was in Order for one Member to refer to another in a sneering manner?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the hon. Member for South Leicestershire was perfectly in Order.
  MR. PELLthought that the hon. Member for Forfarshire might remark, with reference to the intervention of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar)—"Save me from my friends." He was going to say that when the hon. Member did that to which he had referred, he thought they could only view him, and he hoped that his constituents would view him, in the light of an opponent of the Bill. If he had misunderstood the hon. Member's views—and he hoped he had not—he should be sorry to have said anything unjust. If the hon. Member really wished, to see the Bill passed, then, in the interests of business, he thought it would be well if the hon. Member, at all events, did not repeat and dilute those remarks which they were always glad to hear from one who was able and competent to deal with the question.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERdid not pretend to say whether the remarks were applicable or not; but if they really wished to get on with the Bill, he must say that it was desirable to avoid making personal remarks upon the conduct of hon. Members.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAagreed to a very great extent with what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) as to the effect of

  173
  that clause. But he imagined that those who drew the Bill and assisted in drafting it had some good and bonâ fide object in making the distinction which was made by the clause; and he hoped that, in good faith to the large number of Irish. Members, the hon. Baronet would stick to his Bill, and support the sub-section.
  MR. BRUENsaid, that the question he had to ask was, whether Sub-section iv. should be taken out of the Bill? They had had a proposition from the Secretary to the Treasury to withdraw those two sub-sections for the purpose of reconsidering them, and before he did so he should like to place the following consideration before the Committee. He imagined the effect of Sub-sections iv. and ii. was to give to the Privy Council the power of withholding from the local authorities certain official powers if they thought fit. He thought that was a very wise provision, because they must not forget that there had been cases in Ireland where the Boards of Guardians had not proved equal to the duties they had had to perform, and which had been dissolved by the Local Government Board, and their duties fulfilled by paid Commissioners. Now, if the power were taken out of the hands of the Privy Council, he, for one, should think that the Bill could not be carried out in Ireland; and he, therefore, hoped it would be passed through in its integrity.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYhoped the Committee would excuse him for again rising, but he thought it necessary to reply to the personal attack of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Pell). He was quite willing to admit—and he was sorry for it—that he could not address the Committee with the same terseness and eloquence as the hon. Member; but he endeavoured to do his duty to his constituents as well as he could, and it was for them to say whether they were satisfied with him or not. The hon. Member had expressed a doubt as to whether he desired to obstruct the Bill, or to improve it. Now, he would appeal to hon. Members on both, sides of the House, whether he had not uniformly endeavoured to improve the Bill. He voted for the second reading, having, during the debate, expressed his opinion that the restrictions sought to be imposed with regard to home cattle were
  174
  not sufficiently stringent, and all the Amendments he had moved were in conformity with the opinions which he then expressed.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERwished to make one remark with regard to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Carlow County (Mr. Bruen). He rather gathered from the hon. Member's remarks that he supposed this clause was meant to give greater power to the Privy Council in Ireland over the local authorities than existed in England. That was a question into which he did not propose to enter. He could not say how far that might, or might not, be necessary. There might be great differences of opinion about it in Ireland. What he wanted to state was that as the Secretary to the Treasury had undertaken to withdraw Sub-section iv., and also Sub-section ii., and to bring them up on Report, if he found it necessary to do so, if he did bring them up on Report, he would have to do this. As they now stood, they gave power to the Privy Council in Ireland to prevent the Act from coming into operation in certain parts of Ireland. The sub-sections stated that they might define whether the local authorities were to apply them or not. "Well, by Part II., they were to arrange what they had to do with regard to home diseases, and they were to give powers to the local authorities. If those powers were not given to someone in Ireland, the Act with regard to home diseases could not be enforced. If the Secretary to the Treasury thought it necessary, on account of the relation of the local authorities in Ireland to the Irish Government—about which he did not give any opinion—to keep some special power of that kind, it would also be necessary not only to give the Privy Council in Ireland the power to apply the Act all through Ireland, but to make it obligatory upon them so to apply it; or else, after having passed, as they supposed, a stamping-out Act for the two Kingdoms, they might find that the Privy Council of Ireland would not put it in force.
  MR. SYNANsaid, that by Subsections iii. and iv., power was given to the local authorities in Ireland to appoint Inspectors who were not professional men. The Privy Council wanted to reserve to itself the power of appointing professional men, supposing

  175
  the local authorities said they would not appoint a professional man, because they could get a non-professional man at a cheaper rate. The Government proposed, under Sub-section iii., to fix the period for which these Inspectors should be appointed, and their remuneration and allowances. Was it right to give to the Privy Council in Ireland, where the local authorities had power to appoint non-professional men, the power of appointing professional men, and of fixing their remuneration and allowances? His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Butt) was quite wrong in supposing that this power, if preserved, would make a hiatus in the Act. No; the local authorities in Ireland had the same power under Part II. of this Act as the local authorities in England. It was, therefore, for the Committee to say whether the Privy Council Orders should have this over-riding power or not. In his opinion, it was necessary for the efficiency of the measure. As, however, the Secretary to the Treasury had asked for time to consider the matter, he, for one, had no objection to give it him, and he thought that the debate on the point might be discontinued.
  Amendment agreed to; Sub-section iv. struck out accordingly.
  On the Motion of Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, Sub-section iii. and Part (2) were struck out of the clause.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.

  Inspectors.
  Clause 71 (Qualifications and powers of Inspectors).
  MR. SYNANmoved to omit Subsection (1) from the clause. It would not be necessary for him to say much on this Amendment, as what he had to say had been in a great measure anticipated in the discussions which had arisen on this Bill. Its object was to give the same power to Ireland as was possessed in England, under the 40th clause, of compelling the local authorities to appoint professional Inspectors, and the question was as to the amount of remuneration proposed. Sub-section (1) proposed to give the local authorities in Ireland power to appoint as Inspectors persons who were not veterinary surgeons—that was, who were not profes-
  176
  sional persons. Under this power, the laxity of the present system would be continued. Those who were practically conversant with the subject would confirm him in the assertion that there had been several cases in which Inspectors who had had no professional training had ordered animals to be slaughtered on the supposition that they were suffering from pleuro-pneumonia; whereas, upon a subsequent inspection by a qualified man, it had turned out that there had been no pleuro-pneumonia at all. The effect of the present system, therefore, was to lead to laxity with reference to the extension of the disease, and sometimes to impose upon the local rates a burden for compensation, from which they ought to be free. What he desired was that the Privy Council should have power to appoint professional Inspectors, to fix their remuneration, and the proportion of it that should be supplied by the Treasury and the Cattle Diseases Fund for Ireland respectively. If the Committee objected to pay the money out of the Consolidated Fund, there was money in Ireland which would be applicable for the purpose. The question, then, was, should they give power to the Privy Council to appoint a professional Inspector under the circumstances he had mentioned? In his own county—Limerick—there were six Unions, and at present there was an Inspector appointed for each Union. By an amalgamation of these Unions, one or two professional Inspectors would be better than the present six, and would be a greater security for the public, the owners of cattle, and the local rates. If professional Inspectors were appointed under the amalgamated part of the Act, the abuses to which he had referred, of slaughtering animals which were not affected by pleuro-pneumonia, would be prevented. The question was whether this was practicable. He thought it was. In Munster there were three counties which had quite sufficient local professional gentlemen to be appointed, while in the province of Connaught there were but two. Still, others might be appointed by the Privy Council, if they would give them sufficient remuneration, half of which should be paid out of the public funds, it being a public question, and half out of the Irish Cattle Diseases Fund. The Government could

  177
  send down an Inspector, if they thought it was necessary. But to send down an Inspector from Dublin to see any particular case—paying his expenses down and hack, and remunerating him for his loss of time—would be almost or entirely as expensive as if a local man were appointed and fixed in the locality; because a local man so appointed would get all the veterinary business of the locality from people who had horses and cattle, provided he knew how to treat the diseases to which they were liable. He apprehended that there was no such scarcity of professional gentlemen as to preclude the Privy Council in Dublin from obtaining a sufficient number of them. If they were paid sufficiently, he believed they would have no difficulty in getting competent men. He, therefore, proposed to omit the following subsection: —
  "(i.) The provisions of Part II., requiring local authorities to keep appointed veterinary inspectors shall not extend to Ireland; and the powers and duties by Part II. conferred and imposed on a veterinary Inspector shall in Ireland be vested in and discharged by an Inspector; but where a person appointed to be an Inspector in Ireland has the qualification of a veterinary Inspector under this Act he may be styled a veterinary Inspector."
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that, as he had had long experience of the veterinary profession, perhaps Her Majesty's Government would excuse him for saying that, if they intended that the rules which applied to England should apply to Ireland, it would be necessary that they should increase the efficiency of the staff of veterinary surgeons in Ireland. He knew from experience that the detection of disease did require a knowledge of pathology, which it was utterly unreasonable to expect in an uneducated man, or a man of no professional training. He was glad to see that Her Majesty's Government had, in many cases, grouped the districts, with the view to the appointment of one educated veterinary surgeon, under whom there would be subordinates. It would be unreasonable to expect the Government to go to the expense of providing such salaries as would insure the same proportion of veterinary surgeons in Ireland as in England. Veterinary surgeons expected to supplement their salaries by ordinary practice; and he was afraid that in Ireland their practice would not
  178
  be sufficiently profitable to induce men, who underwent a course of at least three years' training, and spent a great deal of money in their education, to go there with the view of practising their profession. At the same time, willing as he always was to spare the public purse, he thought it would not be fair to the stockholders of Ireland that there should be a large number of unprofessional Inspectors. The lives of their stock, in many cases, depended upon the judgment of these Inspectors; and he hoped the Government would provide, either by grouping the districts, or by some other arrangement, to give a sufficient number of educated Inspectors, with a subordinate staff, to meet the requirements of the case. The evidence given before the Committee of the House of Commons and of the House of Lords was strongly to the effect that in Ireland the number of educated veterinary surgeons holding a diploma was really lamentable, and it would be still more so, considering the requirements which were about to be enacted.
  MR. BUTTthought the question was a very simple one, and if the hon. Member for County Limerick (Mr. Synan) and the hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. Newdegate) had carefully considered it, they would have come to the same conclusion. This question was fully discussed two years ago, when a, Bill similar to the present was passed through the House of Lords. In England, by the 14th section, every local authority was bound to appoint a veterinary surgeon as an Inspector. If it were not for this sub-section, every local authority in Ireland would be obliged to do the same; but that was impossible. They could not get veterinary surgeons in Ireland for every local authority, and therefore it was essentially necessary to modify the provision. By so doing they did not take away the power of the local authorities to appoint a veterinary surgeon. The farmers and magistrates represented in the Poor Law Board might appoint veterinary surgeons if they liked. The Privy Council had the power of amalgamating and consolidating Unions, and of obliging them as in England to appoint a veterinary surgeon. Was not that provision sufficient? He thought, at all events, it was rational, and that if they meant to pass the Bill, the less discussion they had on such un-

  179
  necessary questions the better their object would be served.
  MR. KING-HARMANstrongly urged the Government and the Privy Council to bear in mind that of the few veterinary surgeons to be found in Ireland, nearly all of them devoted their time to the diseases of horses. There were not in Ireland, practically, any real cattle doctors, and it was his belief that if properly-qualified veterinary Inspectors were appointed, they would get a very large amount of practice from farmers who had cattle, and that this practice would go a long way towards remunerating them. He had within the last 12 months been thinking of taking over to Ireland a veterinary surgeon on his own account, for his own immediate neighbourhood, guaranteeing him a small stipend, as he felt sure that in time the farmers would be gainers by it.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONthought that, on the whole, the Committee had better pass the clause as it stood in the Bill, and he would tell them why. Their object was to get properly-qualified veterinary Inspectors where it was possible; but this clause was drawn on the assumption that, at the present moment, there was in some districts a scarcity of persons who were so qualified, and therefore Clauses 70 and 71 provided only for the appointment of properly-qualified persons wherever it was possible to get them. The Lord Lieutenant had power, under Clause 71, of grouping together a number of unions and of enforcing the appointment of a properly-qualified veterinary Inspector; and by an Amendment which he (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) intended to make, he proposed to give the Lord Lieutenant power in such a case to remunerate such Inspectors out of the public funds instead of out of private funds. Clause 70, which had been already passed, gave power to the Lord Lieutenant to enforce the appointment of a properly-qualified veterinary Inspector where it was possible, and where the local authority neglected to do it. Under these circumstances, he thought the Government had gone as far as they could with regard to the appointment of these Inspectors. He believed the Lord Lieutenant and the Privy Council of Ireland would encourage the appointment of duly-qualified men as far as possible, and prevent the local
  180
  authorities from neglecting their duty in this matter where they had the means of carrying it out.
  MR. WHITWELLurged that the Veterinary Staff should be increased and paid out of the mixed fund such a sum as might be reasonably satisfactory. He might call attention to the fact that on the Votes the other day, the whole expense of the Veterinary Department in Ireland was only £1,900, and the whole strength of the Veterinary Inspection was concentrated in one Veterinary Inspector at £300 a-year, and an Assistant Inspector at £120 a-year, or about 8s. 6d. per day. He believed that if they were to have the cattle which came from Ireland brought in a perfectly healthy state into this country, they must be prepared to vote a sum of money for their proper inspection by well-qualified persons. He was not going into the question of the amount of disease that existed in Ireland. Whatever it might have been, it might on some future occasion be considerably increased; and therefore it was necessary that before the cattle were sent over to this country they should be properly inspected. From Belfast, last year, there were 87,900 cattle, and 2,900 calves exported, and the only inspection that took place was performed by a single individual. He said, therefore, on behalf of the interests of the two countries, that we must be prepared to encounter more expense for inspection if Irish cattle were to be imported to this country in a healthy state.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAhoped the hon. Member for Limerick County (Mr. Synan) would withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. KAVANAGHsaid, that if there was not proper inspection by qualified veterinary surgeons in Ireland, the whole system would break down. He believed that the Veterinary Department, as at present constituted in Ireland, would be utterly unable to carry out the provisions of the Bill, and that it must be strengthened, as a mere act of justice to the Irish farmers.
  MR. BUTTthought they were confusing two things which were entirely distinct. There was no person who was more in favour of strengthening the Veterinary Department than he was. He thought the gentleman who presided over that Department was underpaid;

  181
  but that had nothing to do with the Amendment before the Committee. The subject before them was that of the local Inspectors appointed by the local authorities. He was exceedingly anxious that there should be in every port of embarkation a most efficient inspection by competent officers of all cattle coming to England, so that the Privy Council in England might dispense entirely with the re-inspection by the local authorities of the cattle on their arrival in this country. His right hon. Friend the Member for Kildare (Mr. Cogan) was not accurate in stating what occurred when the deputation waited on the Duke of Richmond and Gordon. He (Mr. Butt) was spokesman on that occasion, and they pressed on the noble Duke exactly what he was now pressing on the Government—the importance of having a very efficient inspection at every Irish port of embarkation. He, for one, would not consider it an insult to Ireland if the officers who were to conduct that inspection for the protection of England were appointed by the Privy Council of England, and perhaps the Irish people could then get rid of the difficulties that were caused by local authorities exercising their power, in some instances, in a manner that could not be approved. As to the question involved in the Amendment before the Committee, he believed the Government had gone as far as they could in providing veterinary surgeons as local Inspectors.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERthought the Motion an important one, but agreed with the Secretary to the Treasury that the question had better stand as it was loft in the Bill. Ho was exceedingly glad to hear the remarks of his hon. and learned Friend who had just sat down (Mr. Butt). If disease was really to be stopped, there must be inspection at the port of embarkation in Ireland, and probably also at the port of debarkation here. That statement was not, to his mind, prejudicial to uniformity of action. Uniformity of action was this—that whether in England, Ireland, or in Scotland, wherever animals were found collected together with the probability of spreading disease, there ought to be special inspection. If there was an export trade from England to Ireland, he would take exactly the same view; but they could not get over the fact that England was an importing country and
  182
  Ireland an exporting country. When it was stated that the cattle plague never got to Ireland, it should be remembered that few animals, or none, were ever sent to Ireland. It was most important, not for England only but quite as much for Ireland, that there should be an attempt to find out disease at the ports when it existed; and the Privy Councils in England and Ireland ought to exercise the utmost care on this subject.
  MR. KING - HARMANbegged the Committee not to be drawn into a discussion upon a question which was not properly before them, but to come to a decision on the Amendment.
  MR. COGANsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) was under some misconception as to the deputation to the Duke of Richmond and Gordon. The hon. and learned Member had evidently referred to a deputation that waited upon the noble Duke two years ago; whereas he (Mr. Cogan) alluded to a deputation during this present Session, when he believed the Duke of Richmond and Gordon to have stated that the object of the Bill was to treat any Irish county under the Bill in precisely the same way as an English county would be treated, and that if there were restrictions in Ireland, there would be similar restrictions in other parts of the Kingdom. There would be no uniformity if there were restrictions in one part of the Kingdom, which were not in another; and it was on the promise of the Duke of Richmond and Gordon that there would be uniformity and nothing beyond it, that the Royal Irish Agricultural Society expressed their approbation of the measure. He doubted very much if that approbation would otherwise have been given.
  MR. MURPHYsaid, this incidental question that had been raised was really a very important one. To his knowledge, the port which he had the honour to represent—Cork—had a most efficient system of inspection, and he was so impressed with the consideration of the extraordinary benefits which must result to the Irish cattle trade from such scientific inspection that he must advocate it, if on no other than selfish grounds. He also thought the utmost care should be taken that the vessels in which the animals were shipped should be properly

  183
  disinfected and ventilated, and that the space for each animal was properly measured off. Were arrangements of this kind uniformly carried out in every port in Ireland, there would be no possibility of the importation of disease into England. In 1876, when the Pleuro-Pneumonia Act for Ireland was passed, by which cattle were treated in Ireland in precisely the same manner as in England, he moved for a Return to show what number of cattle had been detained at the various ports of Ireland prior to their embarkation for England. These cattle were detained under Orders of which the Committee appeared, in discussing this question, to be perfectly ignorant. In 1873, Orders were passed requiring the examination of cattle by the veterinary surgeon. They did not come into operation until 1874–5, and in 1874 there were only 3 head of cattle stopped for pleuro-pneumonia, 2 head for foot-and-mouth disease, and 34 sheep. In 1875, 4 were stopped for pleuro-pneumonia, 74 for foot-and-mouth disease, and 147 swine were stopped. He mentioned this to show the supervision that then existed, and he might also mention what were then the regulations of the Board of Trade. No vessel was allowed to leave any port with cattle on board, unless with a certificate that the recommendations of the Privy Council had been absolutely complied with, that the ventilation was in every respect satisfactory, and that the vessel at the time of inspection had been completely cleansed and disinfected. He mentioned this because there was an evident misconception on the part of the Committee as to the precautions already taken in Ireland.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONurged the Committee to come to some decision on the clause before it. The Committee had been discussing for some time an issue which, however interesting, did not affect the question now to be decided, which was whether it was possible to insist that in every instance the local authority should appoint a veterinary Inspector. He thought the Committee would come to the opinion that wherever it was possible this would be done under the clauses which he had explained to the Committee, and that it was better to allow the clause they were now considering to remain as it stood for a time.
  MR. SYNANsaid, his object had been served by the attention he had called to the necessity of strengthening the Veterinary Department in Ireland. If the Government said this proposal was impracticable, let it be so; but he thought it was only the question of the expenditure of more money.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONmoved to insert, in page 38, line 34, after "thereto," the following words:—
  "Or the Lord Lieutenant may, if he thinks fit, appoint a veterinary Inspector for the united district, on such terms and conditions with reference to contribution by the several unions towards the travelling expenses and allowances of the Inspector as the Lord Lieutenant thinks fit."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. SYNANmoved to add to the clause as amended—
  "And how much of same (not exceeding one-half of such remuneration) should be paid out of the moneys provided by Parliament for the purposes of this Act or out of the general cattle diseases fund hereinafter mentioned."
  If it was desired to strengthen the Department, it would be impossible to succeed by payments out of local rates merely.
  THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the words would not fit in with the clause properly as it stood; and that, in consequence of the Government Amendment, it would have to be altered.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONexplained, that the salaries of the Inspectors appointed by the Lord Lieutenant to districts grouped together would be paid out of the public funds.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. ARTHUR PEELasked, whether it was intended that the Irish Privy Council should make a yearly Report like that of the English Privy Council, which was to be laid before Parliament?
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, it was intended, by the provisions of the 52nd clause, that a Report from Ireland should be presented to Parliament.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Postponed clauses considered.
  Clause 5 (Interpretation and construction).
  MR. ANDERSONproposed, in page 2, line 33, to leave out the words "and all other ruminating animals." He said, he would like to know what "ruminating animals" were. He did not believe it was generally understood, and he was not able to instruct the hon. Gentleman if he had not got information. He doubted whether any other Member of the Committee could define the word "ruminating," and that only showed the absurdity of putting it in the Bill. He understood camels and goats and all sorts of deer might be included in "ruminating animals." There was some doubt about hares, and some authorities would even include squirrels. There being so much uncertainty, the simplest plan would be to leave the words out of the clause.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONcould not consent to leave the words out. They might be slightly difficult to define, and there might be even some disputes as to certain animals which certain authorities considered ruminating, and which other authorities considered not to be ruminating; but the words would assist the Privy Council in dealing with a particular clause, under which they proposed to take powers with regard to animals introduced for scientific purposes to the Zoological Gardens. It might be quite possible—he did not say probable—that it would be necessary to deal with animals so imported, if there was evidence that they were likely to spread disease. The words were stated by the Privy Council to be necessary for the working of the Bill; therefore, he would ask the Committee to adhere to them.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, making the meaning of the definition clear would surely improve the Bill; but if the hon. Gentleman did not wish to have the clause more definite, he (Mr. Anderson) would not press the Amendment upon him.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. BIGGARbegged leave to move, in page 2, lines 37 and 38, the omission of the words "foot-and-mouth" in the definition of disease. Having read with considerable care the evidence given before the Committees of both Houses
  186
  of Parliament, he had come to the decided conclusion that far more harm was likely to be done by the system of meddling and interfering with this disease than was likely to be done by the disease itself.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that in proposing to exclude foot-and-mouth disease from the Bill, the hon. Member was raising a question which had already been decided when Clause 22 was passed. It was out of Order to raise it again.
  MR. BIGGARproposed to give his reasons for a course which he had had no opportunity of taking before.
  THE CHAIRMANrepeated that it would be out of Order to raise the question then.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, in that case, he would take an opportunity of raising the question on a further stage of the Bill. To postpone a clause, and then refuse to allow the different parts of the clause to be discussed, did not appear to him to be a practical way to settle a question.
  THE CHAIRMANruled that the point was beyond further controversy. The same objection would not apply to the hon. Gentleman's next Amendment, which raised the question whether "sheep scab" would remain part of the clause; because, on that matter, the Committee had not previously expressed an opinion.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he would not push the point any further. As to sheep scab, he could not express a very decided opinion, because the district with which he was connected was not a sheep-farming district. But the disease seemed to be looked upon as trivial in character.
  THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the hon. Gentleman had not withdrawn his previous Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. BIGGARproposed, in page 2, line 38, to omit the words "sheep scab." He wished to point out that the witnesses before the Committee had not attached much weight to that disease. Few questions were asked, and it appeared to be considered that there was little danger of farmers being so injudicious as to bring their sheep to market with this disease, because they would have to sell them at a reduced price,

  187
  and it would pay them far better to keep them at home till they were cured.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEthought these words were unnecessary, after the words that were inserted in Clause 30, giving power to the Privy Council to extend the definition of disease. As the main sections of the Act were not intended to apply to these small diseases, he thought it would be better to leave the words out.
  MR. PELLhoped the Government would keep the words in the clause. This was an extremely tiresome and troublesome disease to deal with, and unless the Privy Council had power to make Rules and Orders in reference to its treatment, the community might be put to a great deal of trouble. This had been found to be the case in the Midland Counties. The disease was not by any means difficult to cure, but it was one which must be taken in hand in the proper way. This could only be done by giving the Privy Council power to make Orders.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONasked the Committee to retain these words in the Bill. The definition of disease contained in this clause enabled the Privy Council to do by Order that which they had done hitherto by Order. If the words were left out, the Privy Council would practically be prevented from making Orders dealing with this disease, if it became necessary to deal with it.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked, what was the object of the sub-section in Clause 31, giving the Privy Council power to extend the definition of the disease?
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, as he understood it, the sub-section in question was necessary to meet any new and unknown disease which might arise.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINmoved, in page 2, line 40, after Sub-section 5, to insert the words—
  "(6.) 'Contact' includes the being or having been in the same shed, stable, herd, flock, or ship."
  Unless the Amendment were accepted, it appeared to him that it might be almost impossible to prove contact, if that word were interpreted according to its etymological meaning.
  MR. GORSTdid not thing the definition at all necessary, because the Bill already gave the power to slaughter cattle that had been in the same shed, stable, herd, flock, or ship.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONcould not accept the Amendment, for the reason stated by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst).
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked the Government, how it was intended to alter the clause to make it read better?
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he would propose an Amendment, making the clause read that a veterinary Inspector meant a member of the Royal Veterinary College.
  Amendment made accordingly.
  MR. NEWDEGATEasked, whether the insertion of the Amendment would qualify persons to act as Inspectors other than members of the College—that was, persons who had undergone examination, and obtained diplomas?
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he did not understand it so. To be styled a veterinary Inspector, a person must be a member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYmoved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 15, after "surgeons," to insert the words "or who holds the veterinary certificate of the Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland." He hoped the Committee would accept the Amendment. The holder of a diploma of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons might be also a veterinary Inspector in Scotland; but the same reciprocity was not shown to veterinary surgeons who held the diplomas of the Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland. That Society held a charter for granting diplomas, and he believed that students who held those diplomas took equal rank with those who held the diplomas of the Royal College. What had already been said as to the scarcity of veterinary Inspectors in Ireland constituted an argument for widening the scope of the definition in the way proposed by his Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, line 15, after the word "surgeons," to insert "or who holds the veterinary certi-

  189
  ficate of the Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland."—(Mr. James Barclay.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONcould not accept the Amendment. The Veterinary College of London was a corporate body, with a recognized charter, and no injustice could arise to Scotland by reason of the clause standing as it at present stood in the Bill, because a clause in the Bill enabled veterinary surgeons to practice for veterinary purposes in Scotland on a diploma obtained from the Scotch Society; and, in order to practice in England, they would only need to obtain a certificate from the English. College by the payment of a small fee. He asked the Committee to consider the wideness of the question that would be opened if the Amendment were accepted. It would have to be considered whether the Royal College ought to be entitled to sell diplomas for veterinary Inspectors. The object of the clause was to maintain the high status of the veterinary Inspectors, and it would be better that it should remain as it stood, so long as no practical hardship to Scotch surgeons was involved.
  MR. NEWDEGATEpointed out that the Highland Society had retained the power to grant diplomas, whereas the English. College had abandoned their right to grant certificates.
  DR. LUSHwas glad the Government resisted the Amendment, but thought a better definition might be inserted in the clause.
  MR. MARK STEWARTremarked, that this was a question of great interest to Scotland, where the veterinary surgeons were considered equal, if not superior, to those of the Southern country, and where the opinion prevailed that the certificate granted by the Highland Society was quite equal, if not superior, to the diploma granted by the Veterinary College. He wished to know what fee would be necessary to become a member of the English College?
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONthought the fee varied from £1 to £7.
  LORD ELCHOasked, if the fee was accompanied by any requirement to pass an examination? What was desirable was that whatever country these
  190
  surgeons might come from they should be free to practice if properly qualified.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, it appeared to him that the reading of the clause went to show that the practice was to be limited to one College. Now, there was a College in Dublin and a College in Edinburgh; and, surely, it was not intended to exclude those who were qualified because they had obtained their diplomas in Dublin or in Edinburgh. It would be necessary, he thought, to amend the clause by inserting the word. "any." It would then read— "Being a member of any Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons." He hoped the hon. Baronet would see the necessity of his proposition.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, there was but one body who could grant diplomas in the United Kingdom, and that one body held examinations in London, in Edinburgh, and in Dublin. The question before the Committee was, whether those who had obtained a diploma in England should be placed on an equality with those who had not. That was the plain question. The Highland Society preferred to grant what were called "certificates," which were not diplomas. In England there was a power to grant certificates; but in order that the educational status might be raised, that power was abandoned, and the students were compelled to apply for diplomas. The difference was that the certificate did not insure to the public those qualifications which the diploma did.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONconsidered the remarks of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) really answered the question raised by the hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. J. W. Barclay). There was but one Society, and it held its examinations in England, Edinburgh, and Dublin. The diplomas granted by the Society to students in Edinburgh and Dublin had the same force as the diplomas granted in England. The Society was established to insure efficiency. If students who merely held certificates were to be let in it would be opening the door very wide indeed.
  MR. MACDONALDconceived that to restrict the practice to one Society alone was trades unionism as much as any that had been carried on by the working classes. It struck him that the impost, or the fixing of fees, to be levied upon

  191
  those who had certificates in Scotland was really objectionable. If persons were equal in skill, why should such a charge be laid down? It would be most unjust, and, as he had said, it savoured strongly of trades unionism amongst those who had succeeded in obtaining their diplomas. Were any class of the working men of this country to put forth such a Bill, they would have all the Becketts, all the Barons, and others, denouncing such a restriction. He hoped the Amendment would be pressed to a division.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, they had heard from the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), and the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury, that there was but one body that granted diplomas to the United Kingdom of England, Ireland, and Scotland. They had also heard that what were called "certificates" were granted by the Highland Society of Scotland. He begged to say that that Society was established prior to the English Society —in fact, it was reckoned the parent of Societies of the kind. That Society granted certificates which entitled the holder to practise in Scotland. Was that to be permitted with or without a fee in addition to that paid to the body in Scotland? [Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: Without a fee.] Then the certificates of the Highland Society were a sufficient qualification for practice in Scotland, and the holders were not required to pay any fee in addition to a branch of the general licensing body.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBESTONsaid, that if the Royal Society of England were to grant certificates, they would have the same force as those granted by the Highland Society.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, that the holders of certificates granted by the Highland Society could not practice in England without payment of a fee. He wished to know why they could not? It seemed to him, as the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) had observed, a question of trades unionism, and nothing else. A Scotch licence that held good on one side of the Border did not seem to hold good on the other. It was a system adopted for putting money into the coffers of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.
  MR. MARK STEWARTsaid, there was a great number of veterinary sur-
  192
  geons in Scotland, of good education, experience, and ability; but who had no means, either of coming to England to practice, or of paying a fee if they did come. It was hard and unjust that these men, who had received their certificates long before this Bill was heard of, should be placed in a disadvantageous position to new practitioners, merely because, by being Scotsmen, they held their certificates from the Highland Society of Scotland.
  MR. SULLIVANconsidered that the whole matter lay in a nutshell. It was either a matter of fee, or of knowledge. If it was a matter of knowledge, and students were not qualified, they had no right to practise anywhere.
  MR. NEWDEGATEasked to be allowed to explain again. There was but one diploma issued for the United Kingdom. Certificates of the Highland Society did not give the same security as diplomas for the efficiency of the man; otherwise they would only apply for certificates. The Royal Veterinary College, and not the Royal Agricultural Society, had the power of granting certificates like the Highland Society; but, for the sake of giving an additional security to the public, they did not exercise their power. The examinations for the certificates were not conducted in the manner that the examinations for the diplomas were—by the Examiners of the chartered body—and hence were not of the same character.
  MR. ANDERSONthought it was simply a question of skill. If there was a sufficiency of skill, it ought not to matter whether the examination had been gone through in England, Ireland, or Scotland. A principle of reciprocity ought to be established. It was absurd to say that those veterinary surgeons who were educated in England were not to be allowed to practise in Ireland and Scotland, or that those educated in Ireland and Scotland were not to practise in England. If there was not reciprocity, a system of trades unionism would be established.
  MR. WHITWELLsaid, it was extremely common in the North of England for members of the College of Surgeons of Edinburgh to be the only practitioners. If the clause was passed, it would be the means of disestablishing and disqualifying men who were acting there under certificates as at present granted.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that the clause would not disqualify anybody. It only required persons who sought to practise to comply with the rules of the Royal Veterinary College of Surgeons.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 124; Noes 160: Majority 36.—(Div. List, No. 234.)
  MR. GORSTproposed, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 33, to leave out the words "body corporate."
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he saw no present objection, but would express his opinion on the Report.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 33 (Prohibition of importation; slaughter or quarantine).
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that as he believed this clause would lead to considerable discussion, it would be best for the Committee to allow him to move to report Progress. The Committee would then have time to consider the clause, and would come into Committee with it fresh on their minds. He hoped the Committee would not occupy too much time in discussing the clause, but that they would pass it and the remaining clauses, and thus enable him to get rid of the Bill.
  MR. CHAPLIN: Would the hon. Baronet state when the next Sitting of the Committee would be?
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: Friday next, at 2.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, that with reference to the division, some of the Members he understood had voted under the belief that, beside the payment of the fee, an examination would be required. He should take the opportunity on the Report of mentioning the subject again.
  MR. NEWDEGATE, in answer to the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire, would tell him that there was an examination required, as well as the payment of a fee.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress, to sit again upon Friday, at Two of the clock.

  HIGHWAYS BILL— [BILLS 95–214.]
  (Mr. Sclater-Booth, Mr. Salt.)

  CONSIDERATTON AS AMENDED.
  Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  MR. PAGETmoved, in page 3, after Clause 7, to insert the following Clause:—
  (Highway district rating not to apply unless ordered by county authority.)
  "Section seven shall not come into operation in any county, unless and until the county authority of such county, by provisional and final orders, made in manner provided by the Highway Acts for forming highway districts, shall so direct."
  What he wished to urge upon the House was that a new principle was introduced by the Bill, and he took exception, not so much to the principle itself, as to its application. He objected to a forced and compulsory district rating wherever the Highway Board existed, and good reason ought to be shown for such a proposal before it was agreed to. He had failed to find there was any demand for it, except, perhaps, on the part of a few local grumblers, who were connected with isolated cases. Those who knew the present system, and how it worked, were of opinion that it had better be left alone. It might be said that the policy of district rating had already been conceded in the Union Assessment Bill; but he contended there was no analogy between the two cases. Union assessment rating was introduced to redress a grievance; but there was no such grievance in connection with the question of district rating. It might be said that, as the use of roads went to all, their common use involved the necessity of a common charge. But was it a matter of fact that such use existed? There were thousands of miles of roads in these highway districts that were nothing more or less than mere occupation roads—roads for the benefit of a farmhouse or a small group of houses, and not for the benefit of the public; and there was no sufficient ground shown to make these roads liable to be repaired at the charge of the highway district. Another argument which might be used was that they ought to equalize the

  195
  burden, making the roads equal throughout the country, the rich locality being brought in aid of the poor one. But if that principle was adopted, where was it to stop? There might be the case of a small and poor parish that required a large expenditure in regard to sewerage and water supply. Why should it not apply to its richer neighbours for help? In the county of Somerset they had got 3,000 or 4,000 miles of roads. These were in good condition, and he had heard no complaint of their management, neither had this highway district rate been asked for. Therefore, before it was imposed upon them, they ought to be allowed to say whether they wished it or not. Again, it might be said that this was a great boon, and that it was for their advantage that these highway districts should exist. Well, he merely desired by his Amendment to say that they should be allowed to refuse the boon if they did not wish it. There might be some cases in which the highway district rate might be fair and reasonable; but, in the majority of cases, he did not think it would be so. Do not lot his Amendment be misunderstood. He accepted the principle of highway districts. He knew the value of the principle, and it had been in work for many years. What he objected to most distinctly was their having imposed upon them, whether they wished it or not, the principle of district rating. He also wished to say that he did not think it was at all likely that the adoption of this principle would lead to any saving of money. At the present moment, wherever a highway district existed, the surveyor was bound to give an annual estimate to the way warden of the amount to be expended on the parish roads for labour and material; and if there was any excess over the ordinary expenditure, he could keep it under control. But all that would be at once got rid of by district rating, because it would no longer be the interest of the way warden to keep down the expenses. All the State could fairly demand of them was that they should keep good roads, and that they should manage them well and economically. If they did this, in Heaven's name, what more did they want?
  New Clause—(Mr. Paget)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  MR. SCLATER - BOOTHsaid, he would not enter at length into a discussion of the question, because it was fully dealt with when the Bill was in Committee. All he would say was that his experience differed from that of his hon. Friend. If there were districts in Somersetshire to which this uniform rate would not be applicable, the magistrates should re-consider their districts. The benefit of highway districts was not to be measured merely by the question of economy, but by efficiency of management and common interests, and the object of the Bill was to spread the charges where that could legitimately be done. If any appeal could be suggested in difficult cases, he should be glad to consider the matter; but at present he must ask the House not to insert the clause in the Bill, because it would be antagonistic to all that had already been settled.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. SPEAKER: I have to point out to the hon. Member for the West Hiding of Yorkshire (Mr. W. S. Stanhope), to the hon. Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. J. R. Yorke), and to the hon. Member for Richmond (Mr. Dundas), that the clauses which stand on the Paper in their names, being money clauses, ought to have been moved in Committee of the Whole House, and that they cannot now be put from the Chair. The same remark will also apply to a clause proposed to be moved by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Dr. Lush).
  On the Motion of Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH, the following Amendments were agreed to:—Clause 7, page 3, line 33, leave out "first," and insert "twenty-fifth;" in the same line, leave out "April," and insert "March." Clause 8, page 4, line 6, leave out "first," and insert "twenty-fifth;" line 7, leave out "April," and insert "March;" line 10, leave out "first," and insert "twenty-fifth;" same line, leave out "April," and insert "March." Clause 9, page 4, line 12, after "accounts," insert "of the highway authority;" line 20, after "accounts," insert "of the highway authority;" same line, after "parish," insert

  197
  "and of their officers;" line 32, after "the," leave out "highways," and insert "highway;" same line, after "Act," leave out "1862," and insert "1864." Clause 13, page 6, line 21, after "Act," insert " and subject to its provisions;" line 28, after "expenses," leave out "of," and insert "incurred from and after the twenty-ninth day of September one thousand eight hundred and seventy-eight;" line 29, after "paid," insert "to the highway authority of such area." Clause 16, page 8, line 1, leave out "an" and insert "a provisional."
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 3, after the words "sanitary district," to insert the words "or with greater portion of such district."—(Mr. Hibbert.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. J. R. YORKE (for Mr. STANSFELD)moved, in Clause 20, page 8, line 39, after "extraordinary," to insert "temporary." His object was to raise the question which was embodied in the Amendment which Mr. Speaker had not allowed him to move.
  Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 39, after the word "extraordinary," to insert the word "temporary."—(Mr. Reginald Yorke.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'temporary' be there inserted."
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsubmitted, as a Question of Order, that it was not competent for the hon. Gentleman, by taking up the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Halifax, to raise a question as to which it had been ruled by the Chair that it could not be discussed.
  MR. SPEAKER: It is clearly out of Order to discuss a clause which has been ruled cannot be put from the Chair.
  Question put, and negatived.
  And it being a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock, the further Proceeding on Consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned till To-morrow.

  JURORS REMUNERATION BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. H. B. SHERIDAN, Bill to provide for the Remuneration of Jurors in Criminal Cases and on Coroners Inquests; and for the better Remuneration of Jurors in Civil Actions, ordered to be brought in by Mr. H. B. SHERIDAN, Sir HENRY JACKSON, Mr. JOSEPH COWEN, Mr. WHITWELL, Mr. BURT, and Mr. O'CONNOR POWER.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 274.]
  House adjourned at ten minutes before Six o'clock.