beasts to be killed. The clause pro- tion. The answer was per head. He vided that the certificate of the inspector wished to know whether the meaning of should be conclusive in all courts of an the clause was for each head or for not animal having had the disease. It not allowing the inspector to enter different only applied to the animal in question but parts of the farm. to other animals in the same yard, or to any person who had been dealing with such animals. He should prefer the introduction of a few words protecting from actions at law inspectors acting bona fide and to the best of their judgment in the execution of their duty. MR. HENLEY said, that the power was great. Notwithstanding, it was proposed to intrust comparatively ignorant persons with it. The duties of the local authorities also were heavy, and he thought their inspectors should be men upon whom they could depend. He could not believe they would feel safe in trusting to the word of a shoemaker. Persons having not the slightest medical knowledge might be appointed inspectors. Common constables were to have this power, that the moment a fiat went out that cattle were diseased they must be killed. It was next provided that the local authorities should set to work and cause the field in which the beast had been to be disinfected. Now it was not a very easy process to disinfect a field. Since the proviso had been introduced without notice he thought the least the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary could do would be not to press the matter, but introduce it to the notice of the House when the Report was brought up. once. MR. BARING said, he was aware that notice should have been given if possible of his intention to introduce the proviso. He also felt the force of many of the objections, but time pressed, and he trusted the House would decide upon the case at He felt the necessity of the provision he had suggested, because without it any of the local authorities acting on the Bill would be liable to actions for so doing. Words "cattle overseers struck out. Proviso agreed to, and added to clause. Clause, as amended, agreed to. [cl. 9.] Clause 11 (Power of Entry for Inspectors and others). COLONEL NORTH said, he wished to have some definition of the words that persons committing "such offence should be liable to a penalty not exceeding £20." He had put the question to the Home Secretary, whether the £20 applied to each head of cattle or to each transac MR. BARING said, the power contained in the clause was a modified power. It did not authorize the inspector to enter at any time, but only when he had reasonable ground for suspecting that cattle infected by the plague were to be found. With respect to the question of the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel North), the point in question had not been decided by the Court of Queen's Bench at the time referred to. It was settled by the Bill. MR. WALDEGRAVE-LESLIE said, he had seen so much during the last four months of the manner in which the cattle plague was carried about by the inspectors, that he thought some check ought to be put upon their power of entering cattle sheds at all times. The inspectors went into sheds among cattle which were infected, and then, without changing their clothes, they went among cattle which were perfectly healthy, and he thought that if that were to continue some parts of the country that had hitherto escaped the plague would become liable to it. A cattle owner was liable to a penalty if he did not send notice that his cattle were diseased, and this was a sufficient protection. He therefore moved, as an Amendment to the clause, that after the words "for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this Act," in the seventh line, the following words should be added : "And before entering, he shall be bound to produce an affidavit, sworn before a justice of the peace, to the affect that he has such reasonable grounds for supposing that cattle affected by the cattle plague are there to be found.” MR. CARNEGIE said, he should support the Amendment. He believed it was dangerous to allow the inspectors to go about all the herds in the country. among A man who owned a valuable herd would rather give an inspector £5, £10, or even £20 than allow him to enter his premises and spread the infection. Cases had been known where inspectors had forced their way into uninfected cattle sheds to get the fee. MR. ST. AUBYN said, he should support the clause as it stood. SIR FITZROY KELLY said, he agreed that some check ought to be put upon the power of inspectors. In many districts. persons had been appointed who were ut he believed that some of the inspectors were unable to write. He hoped that the Government would adopt his Amendment. MR. HENLEY said, that first of all every constable was empowered to take action under this Bill, and now they were to be required to record their reasons for terly incompetent to discharge the duties of the office, simply for the want of competent inspectors. Instead of an affidavit, he would suggest that an inspector should obtain the authority of a magistrate to empower him to inspect cattle against the will of the owner. The inspectors would have no difficulty in obtaining that autho-acting in writing. That was getting on, rity when it was necessary, and the authority would be some protection to the cattle owners. MR. ACLAND said, he thought the best course would be to require the inspector to act on the information of one or more neighbouring cattle owners or other credible persons. The inspectors would then be compelled to show their authority before going into any cattle shed. In his part of the country there was no human being so detested and dreaded as the cattle inspector. MR. AYRTON said, he was sorry to see that the zeal which had been shown at first in discussing the subject of the cattle plague had somewhat fallen off. He thought they ought to sustain the tone they had at first adopted, and support the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary in these measures, notwithstanding their stringency. There could be no fair objection to the inspectors having power to visit the cattle sheds. It was only carrying out the same principle which was observed in the case of inspectors of factories, and inspectors of mines. Why did they not strip the inspector, wash him, and fumigate him at once, instead of only making him swear an affidavit? He ridiculed the idea that inspectors would carry the plague about with them, and thought they ought to be fettered with no obstructions in the performance of their duties. MR. KINNAIRD said, he was astonished to find the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets disagreeing with the principle that a man's house was his castle. [Mr. AYRTON: Cattle shed.] He thought that the farmer ought not to have his premises invaded unnecessarily, and hoped that the hon. Member (Mr. Waldegrave-Leslie) would press his Amendment. MR. WHALLEY said, that the object would be obtained by requiring the inspector, if he should be requested to do so, to state in writing the grounds on which he entered the premises. MR. BARING said, he would accept the Amendment suggested by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley). MR. WALDEGRAVE-LESLIE said, Sir FitzRoy Kelly he thought. They had to provide as far as possible against the spread of the disease, and they must remember that on the first appearance of the plague in a district there were always a good many gaping people— constables sometimes, as well as otherswho went to the farms where the disease existed to have what they called a "look," thereby spreading the disease. It was always dangerous to encourage people to visit those spots at their own will and pleasure, and they should remember that the grounds upon which policemen acted were not always the soundest. By fining a man £20 if he did not announce the appearance of the disease, and by offering him compensation if he did, they were holding out the two strongest inducements by which people were influenced-hope and fear. He thought that the clause was, on the whole, likely to be more productive of mischief than of good. MR. GOODSON said, he thought that all objections would be met by providing that the officers should act by direction of the local authorities. MR. WHALLEY said, he thought that if the inspectors recorded in writing their reasons for acting, it would soon be seen whether they exceeded their powers or not. If, however, inspectors were only to act in individual cases upon the authority of the local authorities, they would frequently have to lose much valuable and important time in gaining access to the authorities. LORD ROBERT MONTAGU said, that by a clause in the Bill, the disinfection of inspectors was already provided for. As it was the interest of local authorities to prevent the spreading of infection, they would take precautions against the inspectors going about to spread the infection. MR. HENLEY said, he would suggest the omission of the words "any constable or police officer." MR. BARING said, he would agree to the suggestion. MR. HUNT said, that in many instances police officers were appointed inspectors, and as they were always bound to appear in uniform, their disinfection would not be an easy matter. So notorious had this fact become, that in some counties, instead of being called "inspectors," the people styled them "infectors." He thought it might be better to strike out the whole clause. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, he approved the omission of the words "any constable or police officer." The objection of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) was a sound one. It was advisable that the inspection should be limited to officers properly qualified. It was, however, necessary to retain the clause, because as the local authorities were empowered to slay suspected animals, they must have means of arriving at a judgment upon the matter. He thought the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member (Mr. Whalley) would act as a check on inspectors. Words proposed to be left out by Mr. BARING, struck out. MR. WHALLEY then moved the addition of the following words at the end of the clause: "Provided always that such inspector shall, if required, state in writing the grounds upon which he has entered such premises for the purpose aforesaid." MR. M'LAGAN moved an Amendment that inspectors should be required to visit the places in which diseased animals were buried, and see that the requirement was carried out. MR. BARING said, that would lead to the spread of infection. Amendment negatived. legal all persons whose animals had been killed under those Orders had an undoubted right to bring an action at law and claim damages. The farmers throughout the country had, however, behaved most submissively. For the good of the nation they had never resisted the Orders in Council or questioned their legality; and not only had they had their diseased animals slaughtered, but many sound cattle had also been slaughtered through the ignorance of the inspectors. Now, the effect of the clause would be to take away the farmers' legal right in such cases. He did not desire to prevent the passing of the clause; but he thought the Government should state that they were willing to bring up the 18th clause, which they had themselves originally introduced, and grant retrospective compensation. MR. HUNT said, he did not see the necessity of raising that question then, because when the 18th clause was left out it was understood that they were to deal with it subsequently. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe) had suggested to the Secretary of State that the clause should be withdrawn, on the ground that it ought to be considered separately, and that it was doubtful whether the retrospective compensation ought to come out of the same fund as that which was to be provided by the Bill; and it had been withdrawn in accordance with that suggestion. It was understood when Clause 18 was struck out that something of a similar kind was to be proposed subsequently, not in this Bill, but in another shape. He hoped, therefore, no doubt existed that the Government were pledged to the retrospective Clause, as amended, agreed to. [cl. 10.] principle. Clauses 19 and 20 struck out. Clause 50 (Confirmation of Orders). LORD ROBERT MONTAGU said, that the clause was intended to indemnify all persons who had acted under the Orders of the Privy Council, and, indeed, to indemnify the Privy Council themselves for the Orders they had issued; and the fact that it was proposed at all was a proof that the Government had a doubt as to the legality of their proceedings. The Lord Chancellor was reported to have said the other day that although the Government had acted under his advice in promulgating these Orders of the Privy Council, yet it might be doubtful whether they came under the terms of the Act, or, in other words, whether they were legal; and if they were not THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, he was very sorry that his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had been obliged, through over exertion and the pressure of public business, to quit the House, and also that he had had no opportunity of consulting with his right hon. Friend as to his exact meaning in respect to that dropped clause relating to retrospective compensation. But having himself been present when it was dropped, he could say that it was dropped, not because the case of these parties ought not to be considered, but because relating to a back claim, whatever it was, it was in no way urgent, and need not interfere with the other parts of the Bill that required to be pushed forward. His right hon. Friend, he was sure, was now quite as much disposed to consider the case of these persons as when I complain of having to pay £100 out of he introduced the clause. £400, the remaining £300 being paid to the assurer by way of compensation out of the county rate. MR. HENLEY said, the explanation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was quite satisfactory if the right hon. Gentleman SIR JAMES FERGUSSON said, he meant to say that those persons who had thought the clause would operate unjustly willingly obeyed what they thought to be to the assurer, inasmuch as he would have the law should not be put in a worse posi-paid the premium to the association, as tion than those whose cattle might be slaughtered hereafter. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, he did not say, nor would he then pretend to form an opinion on the subject, that the parties who preferred retrospective claims should be dealt with precisely like those who had to be dealt with prospectively. He thought the former case was different in some respects from the latter, but he had no doubt his right hon Friend would be as ready as he was at first to consider it upon its merits. MR. HENLEY: Nullum simile est idem. I take it to be admitted that they have a fair claim to compensation, and that the Government will, at all events, bring up some clause upon the subject. Clause agreed to. [cl. 32.] On Motion of Mr. BARING, Clause 6 A (Power to assemble adjourned Sessions), and Clause 7 B (Meeting of Local Authority in Scotland), added to the Bill. MR. BARING moved to add a new clause (Clause 20 C) well as having to contribute towards the county rate, while his more unthrifty neighbour would get the same amount of compensation having only contributed to the county rate. MR. NEATE said, he thought the matter required further consideration. LORD HENRY THYNNE moved that the clause be postponed. He said that it benefited the insurance offices at the expense of the county rate. MR. BARING said, he hoped the Committee would pass the clause, as it would benefit the insurance associations without throwing any additional burden upon the county rate. Unless the clause were carried the Act would impose great hardship upon the insurance associations, since the sound cattle slaughtered under the provisions of effects of the disease, and therefore the the Act might not have died from the Act, without the clause, would simply deprive the associations of so much money. The effect of the clause had been quite correctly stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Fitz Roy Kelly). If it were "Where any animal has been slaughtered under not inserted in the Bill the owner of an ani the provisions of this Act, the owner of such animal ordered to be slaughtered would be enmal shall not be entitled to receive, in respect of the insurance of such animal, any sum which, to- titled to receive three-fourths of the value of gether with the payment he receives for such the animal, and the same amount from the animal under the provisions of this Act, shall ex-insurance company, so that he would receed the sum which he would otherwise have been ceive the full value of the animal and oneentitled to receive in respect of such insurance." half more. The relief such a clause would give to the insurance associations would enable them to continue in existence. The object of the provision was to ensure the proper working of the insurance companies, and of the means of providing proper compensation. The county rate would, under the clause proposed, be bound to pay compensation, and then the insurance company would pay any difference there might be between the amount of the compensation and the sum for which the animal was insured. MR. AYRTON said, the clause merely MR. HUNT said, he thought that if the enabled the owner to deduct from the clause passed the persons assuring should compensation what he received from the have returned to them a proportionate part insurance office. The principle of the inof the premiums paid to the insurance as-surance company was only to pay the sociations, since they would only receive a salvage. small sum from the associations. SIR FITZROY KELLY said, the effect of the clause would be to do justice between the parties. It would be unfair to compel the insurance companies to pay the whole sum assured for animals slaughtered under the Act, but they could scarcely The Chancellor of the Exchequer Clause agreed to. MR. BARING proposed a clause that the Act should continue in force until the first day of June, 1867, and until the end of the then Session of Parliament, and no longer. MR. HUNT reminded the Government SIR FITZROY KELLY said, he wished that power was to be taken to discontinue to inquire whether it was the intention of the Bill supposing a remedy were found the Government to pass the Bill to-morrow? for the cattle plague. He did not understand that any clause to that effect had been introduced. MR. BARING said, a clause would be brought up to that effect on the Report. Clause agreed to. [cl. 34.] Schedule 1. Amendment proposed, to insert the words "counties including any town or place which does not return or contribute to return a Member to Parliament."(The Lord Advocate.) SIR JAMES FERGUSSON moved to insert words limiting the operation of the schedule in the case of Scotch towns to such as have a population of not less than 20,000. Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, by adding, at the end thereof, the words "and which has not a population of twenty thousand inhabitants."-(Sir James Fergusson.) Question put, "That those words be there added." The Committee divided:-Ayes 24; Noes 26 Majority 2. On Question that the Schedule, as amended, stand part of the Bill, MR. CRAUFURD said, he wished to ask the Lord Advocate whether he intended to introduce into the Bill those clauses which he suggested giving permissive powers to the magistrates in boroughs to unite with counties, or to place themselves under the counties in cases where they should think it desirable for the purposes of the Act. THE LORD ADVOCATE said, it would be very desirable that such a power should be introduced into the Bill; but considering the stage at which the Bill had now arrived that could only be done in another place. Schedule, as amended, agreed to. On Question that the Chairman report the Bill, as amended, to the House, THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, that the Bill would come on as an Order of the Day to-morrow after the notice with respect to the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, he hoped so. It was intended to move the third reading after the Report had been received. House resumed. Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow. CATTLE PLAGUE BILL-[BILL 7.] Bill reported; to be printed, as amended [Bill 20]; re-committed for To-morrow. House adjourned at One o'clock. HOUSE OF LORDS, Saturday, February 17, 1866. MINUTES.-Took the Oath-The Earl of Dudley. PUBLIC BILLS-First Reading-Habeas Corpus Suspension (Ireland) (12), read 2, Comm. negatived, read 3a and passed, and Royal Assent; Art (15); Telegraph Act Amendment* (13); Cattle Diseases * (14). HABEAS CORPUS SUSPENSION PASSED THROUGH ALL STAGES. Bill brought from the Commons; read 1; and to be printed (No. 12). Order of the Day for Standing Orders Nos. 37 and 38 to be considered in order to their being dispensed with, read. EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, in moving that this Bill be now read a second time, I have to inform your Lordships that it is with great regret Her Majesty's Government have felt themselves compelled to propose the present measure for the suspension for a limited time of the Constitution in one portion of Her Majesty's dominions; and it is now my purpose to state shortly to your Lordships the reasons which have induced Her Majesty's Go vernment to consider that an extensive and formidable conspiracy exists in Ireland, against which all the regular powers of the law have been put in force by the Lord Lieutenant administering the Government in that part of the United Kingdom. |