Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

commend this proposal to the approbation of the House? Why, it was but last week that Dr. Manning preached a sermon at the Oratory hard by in laudation of St. Thomas, as they styled him. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laughed; perhaps they did not know whom Dr. Manning meant by St. Thomas. Why, it was no other than Thomas A'Becket an Archbishop of Canterbury who resisted the laws of this country, and who lost his life in consequence of his rebelling against the constitutions of Clarendon-constitutions passed 700 years ago by our Roman Catholic ancestors, to guard the freedom and independence of this country against the intrusion of a foreign jurisdictionthat of the Papacy-laws passed for the very same object and purpose for which the negative declarations in the oath of supremacy were now retained, and against which, in the very sermon to which he had alluded, Dr. Manning protested, and urged all whom he could influence to rebel. would not pursue the subject further. He would only say that the oaths-great part of which the Government now sought to destroy represented a settlement established by Parliament only eight years ago, after a struggle of eleven years. Under existing circumstances, it was not becoming in Her Majesty's Ministers to propose to disturb that settlement; indeed, it was scarcely decent.

Motion agreed to.

He

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]
[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Moved, "That the Bill be now read the second time."-(Sir George Grey).

MR. HUNT: Sir, in common with those Gentlemen who have been kind enough to assist me in the preparation of the measure which I laid on the table the other night, I have had the greatest difficulty in arriving at a conclusion as to what course I ought to take with regard to the Bill now before the House, in consequence of the very great delay which took place before

the Bill reached the hands of Members. | Bill. Under the stress of circumstances I have had some experience as to the neces- I consented to that arrangement; but do sity for such delay. On Thursday last, not let it be supposed that I think the after the meeting in St. James' Hall, it Government Bill, so far as one point-and first entered my mind to bring in a Bill. I wish to confine my remarks to this point, At that time I had no Bill prepared, but I and to say nothing about the slaughter of gave my Notice to the House within an animals, and the compensation to be given hour after the meeting. On Monday, when for them-do not let it be supposed that I I moved for leave to introduce the measure, think the Government Bill a satisfactory I had a proof of the Bill in my hand, and one. The point to which I allude is the copies were in the hands of Members the removal of cattle. I believe it would be far next morning. If an independent Member better to keep to the present regulations, who has no special means at his disposal inasmuch as people have now got to unfor preparing Bills can have a Bill prepared derstand them, rather than produce a and circulated within that time, I ask whe- new set of orders such as those provided ther the Government, with every means at in this Bill. I confess that when I heard their disposal, cannot do the same thing? the speech of the right hon. Gentleman I appeal to the House to compare the two (the Secretary for the Home Department) Bills, not on their merit, but on their con- the other night I was not prepared for a struction. I do not take any credit to my- Bill so permissive in its principle. And self on this point, because I am indebted here, I venture to observe, that it requires to a legal gentleman for the structure of very considerable attention to understand my Bill; but I ask whether the Govern- this Bill. If I misunderstand it, I do not ment Bill does not bear far greater marks think I shall be to blame. From the speech of haste than mine. The only conclusion of the right hon. Baronet the other night I can come to is, that the gentleman who I understood that with respect to removals drew the Government Bill received his in- the Bill would be this :-That there would structions so late that he was not able to be enacted in the Bill a code of regulations do justice to himself. The delay and the which all counties adopting the non-removal extraordinarily inconvenient structure of principle must accept; that it was to be their Bill convince me that till the last mo- left to the counties to adopt this principle ment the Government did not know the or not, but that if they adopted it they nature of the Bill they were going to lay must accept the statutory regulations. But on the table. A Bill was announced in I find that the whole structure of the Bill Her Majesty's most gracious Speech from is framed in the sense of permission to the the Throne; notice was given of its intro- local authorities to adopt regulations or duction the first night of the Session on not the idea of the Bill is permissiveness, which it was possible to do so; it was in- and the difficulty of dealing with it in Comtroduced the same night as mine; and yet mittee will arise from the permissive power it was not in the hands of Members till which it gives to local authorities in respect twenty-four hours after mine. I mention of those regulations. In the first clauses this to show the extreme embarrassment of the Bill, I think down to Clause 9, with in which those who act with me are placed the exception of the interpretation clauses, with regard to the Government Bill. Yes- the several provisions have reference to terday, between three and four o'clock in getting the local authorities together, and the afternoon, a certain number of copies giving them certain powers. The difficulty of the Government Bill came to the House. will be that if we pass these provisions in I procured one; but having given it to a Committee we shall be assenting to the friend, I found that all the other copies permissive principle. I do not see how we had been disposed of, and I could not get can go on passing these clauses in Comanother for myself till this morning. I mittee if we are to deny discretionary was asked last night by the organ of the power to those authorities. We then come Government in communication with Mem- to clauses which are compulsory on the bers of this House what course I intended local authorities; but I do not find anyto take. I do not think an independent thing new in them. Clause 13 makes it Member was ever placed in so embarrassing compulsory on all local authorities to a position. It was suggested to me that slaughter diseased animals, and provides if I assented to the second reading of the compensation. I believe that between the Government Bill to-day, the Government compensation views of the Government and would assent to the second reading of my my own views on the same point there is

not very much difference; but as to compulsory slaughter, we have it now under the orders of the inspectors appointed by

the local authorities. The 14th clause

provides for the burial and disinfection of the carcass; but this is nothing new. Then we come to the purification of sheds in which diseased animals have died or are

slaughtered; but, if I remember rightly, the inspectors have the power to order such disinfection now. Clause 16 provides for the slaughter of animals herding with

diseased cattle. I believe this is a new power. Coming to the isolation of infected places, there are very stringent statutory rules as to what is to be done with those places. That is very good, but its value is destroyed by a provision leaving it to

the local authorities to decide what the

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

That, I believe, is a regulation which has
already been adopted by almost all the
local authorities. The clause, however,
makes this important exception, except
by railway." Now, on this point I am di-
rectly at issue with the Government. What
I wish to insist upon is this-that unless
you stop for a certain time all movement of
cattle by railway it is utterly impossible to
prevent the spreading of the infection-I
believe that unless you do so it will be
utterly impossible to ensure the cleansing
the cattle trucks to be in daily use,
fresh animals to be conveyed in them, and
you will keep alive the infection and have
no power to stop it. The next paragraph
is in these terms-

or disinfection of the cattle trucks. Allow
allow

"No animal shall be taken into the district of that local authority for the time being in of any local authority contrary to any prohibition force."

So it is to be permissive to the local authorities to exclude animals from their

infected area is. They may say it is a shed, or a farm, or a hamlet, or a parish, or a petty sessions district, or a Parliamentary division, or a riding, or a county. And how are the local authorities to settle this? They must call in the best professional assistance to hand, and, perhaps, the inspectors may be the best; but I am sorry to say that the opinion of some of those inspectors is not worth more than the opinion of the jurisdiction or not as they please. That first child whom you may happen to meet was exceedingly objectionable-considerin the street. Now, one of the greatest diffi-ing, too, that the Bill did not altogether culties we have experienced has been to prevent the movement of cattle by railway. find competent men to fill the office of in. It appeared, then, by the Government measpector. So ignorant have some of them sure, that even though the local authorities should be desirous of excluding the introshowed themselves that in some cases would not have the power of preventing their duction of cattle within their district they movement by railway, although they might stop them from passing along the ordinary roads. The clause, as it went on, again gave the local authorities a permissive which he considered very objec

they had actually certified that no disease

existed, where the cattle were in fact

affected, and consequently spreading the disease around. Surely the Government could not suppose that by such a provision they were going to stop the operation of the infection. To come, however, to the question of the movement of cattle. That is a point to which I wish to draw the attention of the House, because it is in respect to this point that those who agree in opinion with me are completely at issue with the Government. The first paragraph of the 21st section is as follows:

"All cattle brought by sea from any place in Great Britain or from any place out of the United Kingdom into any town or place in Great Britain shall be marked by clipping the hair off the end of the tail, and no such cattle shall be removed alive from such town or place by land."

I do not object to that paragraph, though I do not know whether" by land" will include conveyance by railway. If not, however, the words may easily be amended in Committee. Then we come to the second paragraph of the same clause

Mr. Hunt

power

tionable

"No cattle shall be moved along any highway within the district of a local authority, except for a distance not exceeding 200 yards from part to part of the same farm, where the local authority has prohibited such movement; and where no such prohibition exists, no cattle shall be moved along any highway within the district of a local authority, except as aforesaid, without the licence or contrary to the tenor of the licence of such local authority."

So that if any local authorities do not choose to make a prohibition, you allow them to grant a licence of removal under any conditions they may choose to adopt. Now, those conditions may be of a very different and varied character in the several districts; and being so, the cattle owners will be compelled to run here and there for the purpose of ascertaining what are the

cattle down by railway." For that same reason the Northamptonshire orders were not made so strict as they would otherwise have been. Then, I must refer to the next paragraph of the 21st section

conditions of the Orders which apply to adjoining counties:-If the movement of particular districts into or through which cattle is free in one and prohibited in the they wish to send their cattle. That may other, the persons who purchase fat cattle appear to some hon. Members to be a small from the farmers will be able to get cattle matter; but I can assure the House that almost at their own price in the county it will prove a most serious and perplexing where the restrictions exist, because, if the arrangement. The right hon. Gentleman farmers refuse to sell them, the purchasers opposite seemed the other night to think could get what beasts they wanted in the that I came here with the peculiar views of county where there are no restrictions. I Northamptonshire. Now, those views were believe that the cattle owners in the counvery fully expressed at a meeting over which ties which have been very hard hit by the I had the honour to preside, held in the disease would submit to almost any restricCorn Exchange at Northampton, and the tions, if they thought they gave a chance same resolution was passed there as was of stopping the disease. But they say, passed the other day, with only two dis- and with sound reason, that it is but fair sentients, at the meeting held in St. they should all be placed upon an equality. James' Hall, at which representatives from If the farmers of one district are to be forty-four counties were present. That subjected to certain restrictions they natushows that the views of Northamptonshire rally complain that their neighbours should are the same as those which are enter-possess the advantage of being spared their tained by the country at large. Still, infliction. That is the reason why they Northamptonshire is very peculiarly cir- objected so much to the Government Orcumstanced, and I ask permission of the der lately repealed with regard to cattle House to refer to it for a moment or two. coming aliveout of the London market. There are no fewer than nine counties They say, "If you prohibit all movement bordering on it. It is also a very narrow of cattle you ought to prohibit butchers gocounty, and a great many farms extending to the London markets and bringing into the adjoining shires. I even know of fields through which the county boundary line runs, and no man knows exactly where the two counties are actually divided. How are you to subject a man to different orders, relating not only to different parts of his own farm, but even to different parts of the same field? Consider, too, the expense such a system will entail upon the farmers of that county. According to this Bill we have to publish our Northamptonshire notices in our newspapers, and also in those of all our bordering counties. In the same way, all these counties have to publish their notices in our newspapers. People often want just to go out of the county and in again with their animals, and sometimes they actually will not be able to do so, except in accordance with the orders of three different local bodies. Is that, I would ask, an evil which ought to be disregarded? Then, there is another question which I do not think the Government have fully considered a question of great importance with regard to the interests of cattleowners. Although the prohibition of the movement of cattle may be absolute by the order of the magistrates in one district, the movement may be allowed under certain conditions under the order of the magistrates of a neighbouring district. The effect of such a varying and unequal state of things will be this-take the case of two

"A licence under this section may be given by the local authority, or by some person duly authorized in writing by such local authority to give such licence, and such licence shall be in such form and subject to such conditions as the local authority may think expedient."

Now, it seems to me that under this section the local authorities will be able to do what

ever they are empowered to do at the present time. The next paragraph is to the effect that persons having charge of animals moved under a licence shall produce the same on demand to any constable, A similar propoliceman, or local officer. vision is made in my Bill, and has been, I believe, in most of the local orders. Then comes the 22nd section, relating to the power of local authorities to make prohibitions. That, in fact, merely confers in express terms powers which the local authorities could have exercised even if no such clause had been inserted. It runs as follows:

"Every local authority shall have power by Order to prohibit altogether or to impose restrictions or conditions on the introduction into its district, and also on the removal from place to place within its district, of-1. Animals, or any specified description thereof, excepting for a dis

[blocks in formation]

"No market, fair, auction, exhibition, or public sale of cattle, shall be held during the time that this part of the Act is in force, except as hereinafter mentioned-that is to say, a market for the sale of cattle intended for immediate

slaughter may be held, with the licence of the local authority of the district; provided, that in case of boroughs or burghs containing less than 40,000 inhabitants, according to the last census, a licence to hold a market in such borough or burgh shall not be valid unless confirmed by the local authority of the county in which such borough or burgh is geographically situate; or, if it adjoins more than one county, by the local authority of each of such counties."

So, here there is permission given to the local authorities of little towns to open markets and fairs, but only with the consent of the county magistrates; while in large towns the borough authorities will have sole jurisdiction. Now, what may not this give rise to this allowing county magistrates to come in and control borough authorities? Was there ever such a bone of contention thrown out in the shape of an enactment? I will tell you one thing that will happen. In all the little towns, where the county authorities have control, they will stop the fairs and markets; but in all the large towns, where the borough authorities think only of the present and not of the future interest of the meat eaters, markets and fairs will be allowed. This will give rise to inequality with regard to trade, for butchers will be able to go to the large towns to buy, but not to the small towns. In this I perceive the one idea which seems to have pervaded the minds of the Government--namely, fear of the big towns. Now, if this interference of the county authorities is good for the small towns it must be equally good for the big towns. The big towns, however, seem to be the bugbear of the Government. I have addressed audiences in large towns, and I believe there is no subject which the working-classes will not take into consideration and reason upon fairly, if not rightly, if you put the arguments plainly and frankly before them. The political sentiments which I hold are not generally supposed to be acceptable to the working-classes in large towns; but I have Mr. Hunt

always found that they were disposed to give me a fair hearing, or to enter into a consideration of the views and arguments opposed to their own opinions; and I believe that if the right hon. Gentleman fairly put before the country the reasons which induced him to propose a measure which would produce temporary inconvenience and privation to the inhabitants of large towns, they would, when they saw it was for their future interest, have cheerfully and gladly submitted to the hardships, they would see that the measure was for their own ultimate good as well as conducive to the interest of the agricultural community. I do not think I need trouble the House with any remarks on the regulations proposed in the Bill with regard to the movement of cattle within the metropolis, or on the provisions relating to the public exposure of diseased animals. Those provisions, I believe, we have now under the Orders in Council. I will pass over also the compensation clause. I will pass on, therefore, to the 43rd section, which has reference to the cleansing of trucks

"Every railway, canal, or other company that carries animals for hire within any part of Great Britain shall, after any animals have been taken out of, and before putting any other animals into, any pen, truck, or boat, cause the said pen, truck, or boat to be properly cleansed, and to be disinfected by a washing of lime-water, or by some other efficient means. Any company making default in so cleansing and disinfecting any pen, truck, or boat, shall be liable to a penalty not extruck, or boat." ceeding five pounds in respect of each such pen,

On this subject I will read an extract from a letter which I received this morning from a gentleman residing in North Wales, near Holyhead. He says—

day I see cattle trucks in a filthy state. I remon"We at present are free from disease, but every strate with the railway company, but though they always promise to clean them, I never see a clean truck coming into the station."

And he goes on to say, "I believe we have no power to touch them." I maintain, however, that there ought to be Government officers whose duty it should be to insist on inspecting the trucks, and compelling them to be thoroughly and perfectly cleansed. Unless, however, you specify a certain space of time during which that cleansing shall take place, you cannot clean the trucks, because you cannot catch them. It was absolutely necessary to put a stop to the cattle trucks moving at all during a certain time. I have now, I am happy to say, gone through the clauses of the Bill which refer to the movement of

« AnteriorContinuar »