MR. GRAVES said, he had an Amendment to propose by way of rider to the clause. THE CHAIRMAN said, it would not be competent for the hon. Member to propose it at the present stage. MR. GRAVES said, he would postpone the Amendment until the proper moment. He wished, however, to explain that the port with which he was connected was peculiarly situated. The cattle market of Liverpool was in the jurisdiction of the county magistrates, being about 1,000 yards from the boundaries of the borough. The way from the point of landing was more a street than a highway, being lined with houses almost continuously. From the market, within the jurisdiction of the county magistrates, the cattle were brought back again within the jurisdiction of the local authorities, and were there slaughtered. That there was no danger from the free use of the cattle market might be inferred from the fact that the county magis they had the Blackwall Railway and the | London, or to hinder the best and largest North London Railway; and by these the supply of meat for the metropolis. meat could be taken to Newgate or Whitechapel with remarkable ease. He had been told that two-thirds of the meat imported to London was consumed by the people living in the East End; and yet some hon. Gentlemen proposed to send the cattle six miles from the landing place, and, having there slaughtered the beasts, to carry the carcases back to Whitechapel. It would not do to dispose of the question by saying it was only for three weeks. As long as the rinderpest lasted the restrictions proposed would have to be continued, and it was a delusion to think the rinderpest would end in three weeks. Then with regard to the disposal of the offal. Within 400 yards of the Victoria Docks' site was a large manure factory which used up the blood and offal of 2,500 animals weekly. How much better would it be to remove the offal to this factory than to carry it through the heart of London to Bermondsey from Islington or the many little slaughterhouses in the City! He was told that the hides went to Ber-trates, on the 29th of January, passed a mondsey. If they took the foreign beasts to Copenhagen Fields, what was to become of the hides? Why, carts must be got to take them to Bermondsey, whereas if the cattle were slaughtered on the banks of the Thames the hides might be placed on barges and taken to Bermondsey close to the manufactories. He submitted he had proved his case. He thought he had never heard two gentlemen endeavour to do more mischief to their constituents than the two metropolitan Members who had addressed the House to-night. In spite of all the care of the inspectors, some diseased animals might slip through. They would, at all events, come over now and then with infected animals, and would carry with them the germs of the disease. Then what would become of the calves of these cows? They were to be sent into the country to be taken care of, and there was great danger that they would propagate the disease. The sheep, too, were to go back to the country again. There were instances of sheep carrying the infection; they were to go into the same market with the cattle; and there was cause for apprehension that the sheep would take the infection into the country with them. His hon. Friend and those who supported him did not wish to do anything either directly or indirectly to prejudice the admission of live cattle into the port of Mr. Banks Stanhope resolution, permitting cattle to come within their jurisdiction to be sold, and returned to town for slaughter. He knew how difficult it was to make out a case for exception, but he based his appeal to the Committee upon the peculiar position of the trade, which would inevitably centre in Liverpool as soon as the present Bill passed. Liverpool must become the centre of supply of dead meat for the large manufacturing towns of Lancashire and the depôt of the meat-producing districts of the north of England and Ireland. On these grounds he trusted that the Committee would not object to add a third exception to the two already admitted in the Bill. MR. BARING pointed out that the great difficulties attending the clause were demonstrated by the fact that it had been four times modified, and that the hon. Mover had intimated a probability that coming telegrams might show the necessity of still farther alterations. He acquitted the hon. Gentleman opposite who raised this question of any intention to raise the question of protection. He did not believe that any man would divide the interest of England and Ireland in this matter, and the effect of the clause was to throw the same obstructions in the way of the cattle trade with Ireland and foreign countries. Looking at the clause, he should say that it was both unnecessary and im practicable. The pith of it was, that all beasts imported should go no further than one mile from the place of landing, and at the end of that mile they must be slaughtered. Now, in the Bill passed the other day on that subject it was enacted that all cattle brought by sea to any town or place should not be allowed to leave such town or place alive. Where, then, was the necessity for the present clause? Why, it rather weakened the effect of the clause which was already law, because it would cease to operate, together with the whole of the hon. Gentleman's Bill, on the 25th of March, whereas the Government measure would continue in operation till the 15th of April next. It was said that certain conveniences for the disposal of cattle would be erected below Blackwall, and that was the only suggestion which the hon. Member had to offer to explain how the cattle landed at the port of Lon don could be killed within a mile of the spot of landing. The carrying out of the clause would be impracticable in the port of London, and intelligence might soon reach them that it would be equally impracticable in twenty or thirty other ports in the kingdom. Why should not beasts be allowed to be taken through the streets of London, for instance-or Liverpool? Let them act in that matter like sensible men, dealing with infected places strictly, but not imposing vexatious or harassing restrictions without sufficient cause. The hon. Member wished to have Islington market thoroughly cleansed; but, if the clause passed, it would by no means secure that object, for the market would be still open for sheep and pigs. No animal could now leave the metropolis alive, and therefore it was impossible the plague could be spread by means of that market. The supply of beasts to this great metropolis was already affected to a serious extent by the stoppage of cattle transit by rail, and he was sure the Committee would, after all, feel that it was a question of some importance how more than 3,000,000 people were to be fed. MR. AYRTON said, he would not object to the second reading of the clause, but meant immediately afterwards to move an Amendment in it. If they did not pass the clause, there could be no movement of cattle at all in the streets of London. ["No!"] He maintained that, having already passed one Bill allowing such movement, if they now passed another Bill saying there was to be no such movement they would thereby repeal the provisions in the previous Act. It was necessary, therefore, now to pass some clause making exceptions to the general enactment; and, the hon. Member's clause being one of a sweeping character, he would propose an Amendment to modify it. Motion agreed to. Clause read a second time. Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word." highway," in line 3, to the word "that," in line 12, in order to insert the words "Within the limits of the metropolis or any borough, as defined by The Cattle Diseases of Clause 17 of that Act, and"—(Mr. Âyrton,)— Prevention Act, 1866,' subject to the provisions instead thereof. MR. DALGLISH wished the port of Glasgow to be excepted. be dealt with as favourably by his proposal MR. AYRTON said, that Glasgow would as any other large town. hon. and learned Member for the Tower MR. NEWDEGATE asked, whether the Hamlets meant, in speaking of the limits of the metropolis, to take in a radius of twelve miles from the General Post Office? the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Board MR. AYRTON replied that he meant of Works, not the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Police. Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause." The Committee divided:-Ayes 102; Noes 156: Majority 54. On Motion of Mr. GRAVES, Provisoshall interfere with the moving of sound beasts "Provided also, that nothing herein contained from the Docks of Liverpool to the Stanley Market and to the lairs on the road to the same, and back from the market to the borough for immedilicence from the local authority," ate slaughter, all such beasts being moved with a added to the clause. MR. NEWDEGATE said, we should be in constant danger of having the plague renewed throughout the country, even though we should be so fortunate as to get rid of it for the present, unless some means were taken to prevent the intermixture in the markets adjoining the various ports of the cattle driven to them for sale with those imported from abroad. The danger of such intermixture was especially great now, owing to the ramifications of Continental railways extending in those districts in which the disease seemed regularly established. He wished, | rous conferences with gentlemen engaged under these circumstances, to learn from largely in the trade of hides and skins in the Government whether their attention the borough which he (Mr. Baines) had would be directed to the subject with the the honour to represent, as well as in view of introducing some permanent mea- other places; and he must say that the sure, which might contain provisions cal- hon. Gentleman had not only met them culated to prevent this danger. in a most liberal manner, but the entire series of clauses now added to the Bill were entirely satisfactory to them. Clause agreed to. Clause (Disinfection and disposal of carcases and skins,)-(Mr. Graves,)-added to the Bill. SIR GEORGE GREY said, that the law gave power to prevent the importation of cattle from any country in which the disease was known to exist. He could not at the present moment pledge the Government to bring in a permanent measure on this subject which should come into operation on the 25th of March next, Clause (Issue and Renewal of orders though they might make some proposal and regulations of Council,)-(Viscount for regulating the movement of cattle Cranbourne,)-added to the Bill. whether infected or not. He thought he Clause (Inspection of cowhouses and might add that the House was hardly cattle-sheds in boroughs,)-(Mr. M'Laspending its time very usefully in legis-ren,)—added to the Bill. lating for so short a period. VISCOUNT CRANBOURNE concurred with the right hon. Gentleman so far as to admit that there had been a considerable waste of time that evening in discussing very trifling matters; but he warned him that he was losing a most valuable opportunity if he did not under take to introduce such a measure as would guard this country against the recurrence of the cattle plague. In Prussia a perpetual war was maintained against the disease from one end of the year to the other; and now that railways brought us into constant communication with Hungary and other places which seemed to be permanent seats of the disease, it was absolutely necessary that the system of traffic in foreign cattle should be placed on a satisfactory footing, with a view to ward off, as far as possible, future danger. SIR MATTHEW RIDLEY said, he thought it most imperative that some steps should be taken to secure an inspection of vessels engaged in cattle traffic between this and foreign countries, particularly with a view of securing a free circulation of air through all parts of the vessel, plenty of room, and a sufficiency of provender. No cattle, moreover, ought to be allowed on deck. If he saw no sign from the Government of a desire to attain this object he should be disposed to blame them, and to charge the President of the Board of Trade with a remissness of duty. Clause, as amended, agreed to, and [cl. 12.] MR. BAINES said, that the hon. Member for Northamptonshire had had numeMr. Newdegate added to the Bill. MR. WALDEGRAVE-LESLIE proposed to add at end of this clause a section placing the inspection of cowhouses, &c., and cattle-sheds in burghs and populous places in Scotland under the Commissioners appointed under the "Police and Improvement Scotland Act." Motion agreed to: Section added to the clause. Clause (Duration of Act). "This Act shall be in force from the first until the twenty-fourth day of March 1866, both inclusive, and no longer." Brought up; read the first and second time. On Question, "That the clause be added to the Bill," VISCOUNT CRANBOURNE was afraid when the Bill reached the other House with such a clause it would appear they had almost spent much of their time in vain. He hoped something would be done to make the Bill rather more worthy of all the pains they had taken with it. MR. ACLAND thought they had been utterly wasting their time if the Bill was only to continue in operation for three weeks. He had to-day received from several quarters the strongest expressions of opinion that some system should be adopted permanently to regulate cattle traffic in England. The Government had turned their attention to this point, but they were completely stopped by the course which had been taken on the other side. MR. HUNT said, he could understand the disappointment of hon. Gentlemen op posite. He had been most strongly urged to limit the Act to the 25th of March. It certainly appeared to him to be the sense of the Committee that the Act should be temporary and that the Government should, between the present time and the 25th of March, give their attention to the subject and then bring in a Bill either continuing some of its provisions or substituting others. for them. MR. BARING understood his hon. Friend opposite to hold the opinion that the necessities of farmers were such that it was essential that stock should move about the country as early as the 25th of March, and he proposed clauses carrying out that view. He had expected from his hon. Friend something more definite as to what degree of relaxation was necessary for the farming interest after the 25th of March. MR. HUNT said, he had brought in a Bill which was to continue in operation up to a certain time, and in the interval he hoped the Government would give their consideration to the subject. Between this and the 25th of March it would be quite possible to bring in a Bill to continue the provisions of this Act, or to improve upon them. SIR GEORGE GREY said, the time of the House would probably be otherwise occupied, and hon. Gentlemen must trust to Orders in Council to continue any of the provisions of this Act. SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE hoped the Bill would be restricted to the 25th of March, and that the Government would in the meantime give the subject their attention. He was perfectly willing that power should be given to the Government to continue some of the provisions of the Bill; or, if that was not done, a short continuance Act might be introduced for the purpose. MR. ACLAND said, he doubted whether by the 24th of March the Bill could be carried out, and in some parts of the country the exceptions contained in the measure would be fatal to its whole object. In districts where there might be a great deal of infection, those on the spot should have the power of abolishing all the exceptions. MR. SCLATER-BOOTH said, he thought that the public would be disappointed if all the provisions of this Bill, which had been so carefully considered, should come to an end on the 24th of March. The subject was one which ought to be taken up and dealt with by the Home Office. SIR GEORGE GREY said, he saw great difficulty in making any rule applicable to all the various circumstances of different parts of the country, and he considered it best to lay down some general rules, and leave it to the local authorities to adapt them to the different parts of the country. MR. CRAUFURD said, that as far as he knew, it was the unanimous opinion of Scotch Members that the clause should be adopted. SIR JAMES FERGUSSON said, that the hon. Member was rather mistaken on that point. Question put, "That the clause be added to the Bill." The Committee divided: Ayes 50; Noes 73: Majority 23. New clause (Licence, how to be obtained) (Mr. Hunt,)-brought up, and read the first time. SIR HARRY VERNEY thought the clause gave too much power to parish officers. He was of opinion that it would be better to fix upon some particular officer in each parish, and charge him with the responsibility. MR. ACLAND thought it would be better to require no confirmation whatever of the statement of the owners. MR. HUNT said, he should have no objection to add the words, "Parish officers being ratepayers to a certain extent or being owners of cattle." SIR GEORGE GREY said, the plan adopted in Northumberland had worked well. There the declaration of the owner was countersigned by two tenantfarmers living in the neighbourhood, who certified that they themselves had seen the cattle and the premises where they were, that they were healthy, and that there was no disease within five miles of the place. MR. HUNT thought a plan which required neighbouring farmers to go on to premises to inspect cattle would be objectionable, as being likely to propagate infection. MR. BARING said, that some substantial person should be made responsible for the granting of these certificates, for the door would be open to gross fraud if the power were vested in any parish officer. SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE said, that the system of elected overseers had worked well in Devonshire, which, however, might not be on all fours with other counties. He believed the best plan was to have certificates given by persons elected by farmers, and confirmed as far as might be by magistrates. The next best thing would be to leave the matter in the hands of the magistrates. If a man were elected for a totally different purpose, there was no security whatever, and the principle of popular election was not brought into play; He was sorry that the proposal to appoint overseers had been withdrawn. SIR GEORGE GREY thought the local authorities should be at liberty to take the course which they thought most efficient. SIR HARRY VERNEY suggested that the local authorities should appoint the parish officers. MR. HUNT accepted the suggestion, which was about the only one he had heard from the other side of the House. SIR GEORGE GREY said, that in many townships there was only one occupier who could be the parish officer, and that person might possibly be interested in the cattle in question. He proposed an alteration in the clause in conformity with the suggestion of the hon. Baronet (Sir Harry Verney)-namely, to leave the appointment of "person or persons" to sign the certificate to the local authorities. The clause was amended by substituting the words "such person or persons as shall be appointed by the local authority." Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added [cl. 13.] to the Bill. New Clause (Disinfection of cattle pens and trucks of Railway Companies,)-(Sir George Grey,)-agreed to, and added to the Bill. Lol. 28 N.] On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, clauses, adapting the provision of the Bill to Scotland, brought up, and agreed to. New Clause (Duration of Act,)-(Mr. Hunt,)-directing that this Act shall have "The Cattle Diseases the same duration as Prevention Act, 1866," brought up, and agreed to. New Schedule added. Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow; and to be printed. [Bill 32.] VACCINATION BILL. On Motion of Mr. BRUCE, Bill to consolidate and amend the Laws relating to Vaccination, ordered to be brought in by Mr. BRUCE and Mr. BARING. CATTLE PLAGUE BILL.-QUESTION. the Lord President a Question with respect EARL GRANVILLE said, that the Goof taking charge of the measure to which vernment must decline the responsibility the noble Earl referred. THE EARL OF DERBY inquired, whether he was to understand from the noble take upon themselves the responsibility of Earl's reply that the Government would letting the Bill drop? EARL GRANVILLE said, that if no noble Peer should think it worth while to take charge of the Bill in that House the Government would consider whether they should take it up. ART BILL (No. 25).—REPORT. Amendments reported (according to Order). THE EARL OF MALMESBURY suggested the omission of the word "Ancient" in the fifth line of the preamble. It having been suggested that there would be some want of courtesy towards foreign nations in refusing leave for our works of the Old Masters to be sent to the Paris Exhibition of 1867, he had looked into the question and could not find any instance in which ancient pictures had been sent from foreign Museums to this country. The removal of works of this description were attended with so much risk that he trusted our contributions to the Paris Exhibition would be confined to the works of modern masters. LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY said, his observations on a former evening applied to modern, not to ancient pictures. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 33.] Sir Stafford Northcote |