"Provided that it shall be lawful for the Local SIR JOHN PAKINGTON believed Authority having jurisdiction within the District the Amendment would be found exceedso exempted as aforesaid by Order to be pub-ingly vexatious, and hoped that it would lished in some Newspaper circulating within not be passed. He suggested that the

pose Restrictions or Conditions on the Introduc- words allowing the movement from one tion of Beasts into its District, and also on the part of the farm to another over 200

yards of highway should be struck out, so that farmers might freely avail themselves of all portions of their farms.

MR. HUNT said, that the reason why he had specified 200 yards was because some farmers had fields on both sides of a road. He desired that some restriction should be placed, even if farmers should be allowed to move their cattle three, four, or five hundred yards instead of two; but if they were left unrestricted as to distance it might lead to great danger.

SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTE minded the Committee that if the suggestion of the hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) were accepted, farmers would frequently drive their cattle along the high road, because portions of their farms might be scattered widely over the country.

SIR EDWARD BULLER said, the restriction of the movement of the cattle to 200 yards would frequently prevent their being taken to the brook where they were accustomed to drink.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY could scarcely conceive a better mode of spreading the infection than that to which the hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Sir Edward Buller) referred.

along a road without a licence, and he could not see what necessity there was to restrict this limited freedom of motion by rendering a licence requisite before the cattle could be removed that short distance, especially after Government had given their sanction to that distance; for in the Bill which they introduced the local authorities, by the 22nd clause, had power to impose restrictions on the removal of animals from place to place, excepting to the extent of 200 yards on the same farm; and that was re-all that this clause proposed. If the hon. Member for Devonshire (Mr. Kekewich) were desirous that power should be given to move the animals a greater distance under licences, he should introduce a new clause to effect his object, but he should not interfere with the relaxing clause now under consideration. The farmers in his own county (Northamptonshire) would be put to the greatest inconvenience by the restriction of the distance to 200 yards; but they had made up their minds to put up with it for the sake of the general good. It was a material fact that, until the end of March, there would be but slight necessity for moving cattle, as they were at present fed upon dry food, which could be carried to them; and if the beasts were in the fields there was no reason why they should not remain in their pasture. In the case of milking cows, he had inquired whether the farmers would not require them to be brought home to be milked ; the answer was, that it would be a great inconvenience, and break into their usual customs; but that they would rather send the milkman to the cow. The strongest case of all that had been made out for an enlargement of the limit was that of the cow about to calve, as at first sight it would appear impossible to leave the cow and new offspring in the fields exposed to inclement weather; but he had been informed that by means of straw and hurdles a sufficient shelter for both might be easily provided, and farmers were willing to run even this risk in order to put a stop to the plague. Then, with respect to watering the cattle, it had been found in Huntingdonshire and Northamptonshire that taking cattle to running streams to water was a most effectual method of spreading the disease, and so strongly was he impressed with the fear of contagion thus conveyed that he had given directions that in future his cows were to be supplied with water pumped up from a well, and not with water from the adjoining river; and although it

SIR EDWARD BULLER advocated the retention of an old custom, and not the adoption of a new practice. He would ten times sooner have the cattle plague among his herd than be unable to obtain water for their use.

MR. F. S. POWELL said, there was a degree of confusion in the use of the word "farm." In many cases the fields of a single farm were spread over a good deal of country, and were frequently partially separated. The distance of 200 yards ought to be increased.

LORD BURGHLEY said, that some hon. Gentlemen appeared to imagine that the Bill was to be a permanent one. If they wished to diminish the disease they must adopt the most stringent measures.

LORD GEORGE CAVENDISH agreed with the hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Sir Edward Buller) in thinking that the animals ought to be allowed to be taken to the brook. This clause was an example showing the inconvenience of having one invariable rule to be enforced throughout the whole country.

MR. HUNT said, he must press it on the recollection of the Committee that the clause was a relaxing clause, permitting farmers to move their cattle 200 yards

Sir John Pakington

might be a great expense, yet it was quite possible to take water to the pastures. His advice to farmers, if they wished to stop the cattle plague, was not to allow their cattle to be driven to a river or stream for water, but to put up with any inconvenience rather than run so great a risk.

SIR GEORGE GREY said, as he understood the clause, farmers were to have an absolute right to move their cattle 200 yards without any licence being required, whereas the Amendment proposed would take away that right, and at the same time give the local authorities power to permit cattle to be removed even for a greater distance under a licence. He had no objection to a discretionary power being given to the local authorities to enlarge the limit so long as the right of the farmer to remove his cattle 200 yards without licence was left untouched.

LORD GEORGE CAVENDISH explained that he wished to make the clause more stringent instead of relaxing it. He had said nothing whatever as to enlarging

the limit.

MR. KEKEWICH thought that in unaffected districts the local authorities should have power to grant licences for the removal of sound cattle under certain circumstances. That seemed to him to be the good sense of the case.

MR. ADDERLEY was of opinion that if the Amendment were carried the practice would vary in every county, and the Act would be rendered nugatory.

MR. BOVILL said, his practical experience in some parts of the country showed him that many small farmers especially those occupying land in the home counties were compelled to drive their cattle from the hills to the lowlands, and he thought 200 yards was too close a limit. What he proposed was to leave the farmers at liberty to move their cattle 200 yards without licences, and at the end of the clause to add words giving the local authorities power to grant licences for the removal of cattle a certain further distance, say of 500 yards. He did not intend absolutely to fix the limit to 500 yards, that was a matter for the House to determine.

case the principle of the Amendment, which practically gave power to the local authorities to set the Act at defiance, should be adopted in any form, that the local authorities should be interpreted to mean the magistrates assembled in quarter sessions. Some people did not believe in infection at all, and there were eccentric justices of the peace as well as Ministers of State, and therefore it was necessary to be careful as to whom the power was intrusted.

SIR GEORGE GREY said, there were no provisions whatever in the Bill for granting licences, and therefore he should have no objection whatever to insert the words proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Guildford (Mr. Bovill).

MR. HENLEY said, this was an exception to a very stringent rule, and they ought not to pass it without making it really useful. He understood the clause to be confined to one occupation. The machinery for the licence was already in the Bill. Where a man happened to have a large farm, say of 1,000 acres, highways might run along unfenced through the middle of his fields, and certainly he ought to have the power of moving his cattle with a licence from one part of his farm to another. If they did not give facilities of that kind the Act would be evaded, or an outery would be raised against it throughout the country.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE said, he thought it very desirable to have the clause so framed that a distinction should be drawn between lands where a man had an interest, and where he would move his cattle cautiously, and a piece of grass-land which he rented, perhaps a couple of miles distant, and where he would have less objection to send his infected animals. Some kind of licence he thought was necessary to give the farmer the right to remove his cattle to distant grazing-ground.

SIR EDWARD BULLER said, he hoped they would not attempt to make the Bill too stringent. He believed the slaughtering clauses would occasion considerable difficulty. He had heard to-day the case of a very respectable man who had twentyMR. LOCKE KING thought that when two valuable beasts that had taken the the farmer had two farms at some distance plague-twenty were recovering; but acfrom each other the question as to the pro-cording to this Act of Parliament the inpriety of removing the animals might be safely left in his hands, as he would not be anxious to convey the disease from one of his homesteads to the other.

VISCOUNT CRANBOURNE hoped, in

spector might direct that the whole herd should be slaughtered. The owner of these cattle said he would suffer anything, he would almost rise in rebellion, rather than permit this. He would strongly urge the

House to see how far the provisions of the

Bill could be relaxed.

MR. HUNT asked if his hon. Friend intended that the licence should last till revoked. A man might get a licence when there was no cattle plague on his farm. The disease might break out among his cattle on the following day, and his licence would entitle him to remove them.

MR. HENLEY said, he was not afraid the clause would open the door to diseased cattle. Cattle to be moved at all must be

sound. The owner must give proof of their soundness before the licence was granted.

SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE ap prehended no difficulty in the practical working of the clause. No justice of the peace would grant a licence without requiring proofs that the cattle to be moved were sound.

MR. KEKEWICH thought the matter not so simple as it was supposed to be. The clause permitted the farmer to move his cattle 200 yards along the highway; and if he went 210 yards he was fined. If he wanted to move them from the homestead to a pasture at a distance exceeding 200 yards he would have to apply to the local authority, who would give him a licence so long as the cattle were sound.

MR. NEWDEGATE hoped that the distance would be extended, and that the limit would be assigned in the licence.

MR. BOVILL then moved, as an Amendment, to add the following words to the clause :

"And with a licence for any longer distance, and until such licence shall be revoked by any justice of the peace."

The clause as it stood enabled sound cattle to be moved without licence 200 yards on any public highway for the purpose of being taken from one building, yard, or close to another building, yard, or close in the same occupation; and the effect of his Amendment would be to allow them to be moved with a licence a further distance on the highway.

Amendment proposed, at the end of the Clause, to add the words " and with a licence for any longer distance, and until such licence shall be revoked by any justice of the peace."-(Mr. Bovill.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

SIR GEORGE GREY concurred in the substance of the Amendment, but suggested that the words "justice of the peace" Sir Edward Buller

MR. BOVILL consented to omit those words.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the said proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.

VISCOUNT CRANBOURNE said, that it was not only necessary that the persons to grant the licences should be settled by the Bill, but also that the licences should be sanctioned by the local authorities.

MR. HUNT observed, that there was nothing in the Amendment to limit the distance to which cattle might be moved. He knew persons who had occupations three or four counties apart; and the Amendment would permit the removal of cattle from a farm in Caithness to a farm in Cornwall. The clause was drawn up for one purpose, and it was now attempted to turn it to another. He suggested that it should be allowed to stand as it was originally framed, and if the hon. and learned Member desired to take the sense of the House on his proposition let him bring it up as a separate clause.

Question put, "That the words 'and with a licence for any longer distance, and until such licence shall be revoked,' be added at the end of Clause 14."

Noes 83; Majority 63.
The Committee divided :-Ayes 146;

VISCOUNT CRANBOURNE observed, that the Committee while intending to facilitate communication between diffierent parts of a farm, did not mean to sanction communication between widely-distant farms, nor to encourage evasion by butchers; and he would therefore move an Amendment suggested by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets, to limit to two miles the distance within which cattle might be moved under licence.

MR. BOVILL would be quite content with the limitation; indeed, he would rather say one mile.

COLONEL WILSON PATTEN moved that the distance be one mile.

The latter Amendment put, and nega

tived.

Clause 20 (Exception for Beasts going to serious thing anything approaching to a Slaughterhouse under the Act).