Page images
PDF
EPUB

--

doubt that with many persons it was regarded as a matter of conscience that a train should not run on the Sunday; but they should take care that the conscience of one man was not to be the only mode of measuring the convenience which should be afforded to another. He had been informed that the Directors of this particular railway the Waterford and Limerick were not acting in accordance with the wishes of the District which it traversed; and he referred especially to that line because it was, he believed, the only one of any great length and importance in Ireland which ran no train on the Sunday. His hon. and learned Friend did not propose the running of more than one train each way on that day; and he (Mr. Milner Gibson) should say that in his opinion the withholding of that accommodation was not in accordance with the spirit of the Act of 1854. Under these circumstances he thought he might fairly support the second reading, especially as his hon. and learned Friend left the question of loss to be decided by the Board of Trade, who would exempt railway companies from the obligation of running trains if by so doing they suffered pecuniary loss. He thought this Bill a fair legislative exposition of what Parliament meant by the Bill of 1854. He thought that in a measure of this sort regard should be had to the general wishes of the population.

MR. WHITESIDE: You would explain a general Act by a local one.

MR. MILNER GIBSON said, he had been informed that redress could be obtained from the Superior Courts by some decision compelling railway companies to give reasonable facilities on the Sunday, but he thought it was better that Parliament should itself give a legislative exposition of the true intent and meaning of the previous Act. He considered this a measure which the House might reasonably entertain, and, speaking for himself individually, he was prepared to support the second reading.

MR. WHITESIDE understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the present measure, which was a partial and local Bill, was to be an exposition of a general statute, and that its principle was not to apply to Scotland or England, and he therefore asked whether the right hon. Gentleman really meant that a general Act of the realm was to be expounded by an enactment which was not to be applied to England and Scotland?

MR. MILNER GIBSON explained that the House could deal with the cases of England and Scotland when they came under consideration.

MR. HENLEY said, that he was struck with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, that he only gave his private opinion on a matter of such vast import. ance. Now, considering the importance of the office held by the right hon. Gentleman, and that he had formed no official opinion on a matter which was one of the most important charges of his Department, he (Mr. Henley) should like to know why they should hurry into legislation at all. What the right hon. Gentleman had sketched out went to change the entire nature of the Bill. As the right hon. Gentleman consented to do away with the universal character of the measure, what occasion existed for any hurry in passing it? And why should not the Government take up this subject and bring in a general measure, if one were necessary, declaratory of the meaning of the Act of 1854? There seemed to be no ground for legislation on the part of the hon. and learned Baronet, but if the principle of the present measure were good, it ought equally to apply to England and Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Board of Trade could not look at the religious part of the question, but must only regard the commercial. That course of proceeding savoured somewhat of Mammon-and something else. After what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman he would give his vote against the second reading of the Bill, because if it was to have no retrospective action it could not remedy the difficulty mentioned with regard to the traffic between Waterford and Limerick.

SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN expressed his readiness to accept the suggestion thrown out by the President of the Board of Trade, and to insert words to render the Bill prospective only.

Question put, "That the word 'now stand part of the Question.'

[ocr errors]

The House divided:-Ayes 83; Noes 200 Majority 117.

Words added.

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Bill put off for six months.

K 2

CATTLE PLAGUE BILL-[BILL 55.]

LORDS' AMENDMENTS.

(Mr. Hunt, Mr. Holland, Mr. Banks

Stanhope, Sir James Fergusson.)

Order for Consideration of Lords' Amendments read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Amendments be now taken into Consideration."-(Mr. Hunt.)

MR. BARING hoped the hon. Member would explain how he proposed to deal with the Amendments.

MR. HUNT said that, as the House knew, the Bill had come down from the other House very much altered from the shape in which it was introduced by him, or in which it had left that House. It was originally intended to be passed with the utmost dispatch, and to be a short Bill with stringent provisions with respect to the movement of cattle. The Bill was delayed in the House of Commons by the Fabian policy of the Government, and it was afterwards further delayed by the same policy in another place-only conducted in a more discreet manner. Consequently, so much time had elapsed that the provisions of the Bill respecting the movement of cattle had become inapplicable and inappropriate, and, therefore, he was not surprised that the Bill had been sent down with those clauses omitted. The prohibition was originally to extend to the 25th of March; and as it was now the 14th, to pass the Bill with such a prohibition for a few days only would have been perfectly ridiculous. The second reading of the Bill was moved in another place by a Cabinet Minister, who said that he would take charge of the Bill with a view of making very great alterations, and certainly he had fulfilled his intentions. Nevertheless, the Bill had come out of the Lords' Select Committee with some useful provisions in substitution of the clauses relating to the movement of cattle. He had no feeling against the Bill because it had undergone the alterations he had mentioned; but, on the contrary, he thought that, as it now stood, it was a useful and valuable measure, and he conceived that the House would do well to pass it in its amended shape, with some few slight alterations. He regarded the clauses enabling the Privy Council and local authorities to proclaim certain places as infected, and prohibiting, after such proclamation, all movement out of those

places, and subjecting all movement within them to certain regulations, as most valuable provisions, and was glad to accept them. With regard to other clauses, some slight alteration had been made in them since they passed the House of Commons, and he was not disposed, after all the time and trouble which had been bestowed in bers of both Houses of Parliament, now the consideration of its provisions by Memthat it had come to its final stage and might do some good, to throw it behind the fire. The clause with respect to the closing of markets and fairs was likely to give rise to some discussion, but from what he could gather from those hon. Members who opposed his proposal for closing the Metropolitan Market, he believed that any difficulty with regard to that clause might be got rid of. The Bill had been described as being unintelligible and confused; but he undertook to say that with some slight Amendments the measure might be made intelligible enough. If the Bill was not proceeded with, what was the alternative? The country would then be left to the Orders of the Privy Council and local authorities; but while Parliament was sitting he trusted that it would not hand over the country to be dealt with entirely by arbitrary Orders, which had already confused and paralyzed the cattle trade.

COLONEL EDWARDS said, he was surprised on referring to the Notices this morning to find that the clause drawn up and promised by the Government and agreed to by the tanning trade had not been inserted as a substitute for the three clauses struck out of the Bill of the hon. Member for Northampton by the House of Lords. He expressed his deep regret that no such clause had been introduced, because it would have given immediate relief to a branch of industry in which a very considerable proportion of his constituents were engaged-he meant the tanning trade. At this moment the trade was completely paralyzed by recent legislation, it being impossible to remove hides and skins, even if protected by a covering, from Leeds or Hull into Beverley, although the law as it stood permitted their transit through the entire length and breadth of the country. He deprecated much discussion on the Bill, as the time was so pressing, and, if hon. Members wished the measure to pass the less they debated the clauses the better. The adoption of any other course would infallibly defeat the Bill.

SIR ANDREW AGNEW thought the this Bill. If they did, their legislation on Privy Council was a more fit body than this subject would be so complicated that Parliament to determine all the minute the business of the country could not be regulations required for meeting the cala- carried on. The whole question should be mity of the cattle plague, and as they taken up by the Government, and they would always be in possession of the best ought to begin de novo. .. and latest information, they were the best able to deal with the matter. At the present moment there were eighteen counties in Scotland, ten counties in Wales, and some five or six counties in England free from the disease; and if in all those it should be attempted to carry out any uniform regulation great inconvenience and loss to the proprietors and farmers would result, attended with no countervailing advantage in respect to stopping the spread of the disease. He therefore thought that this Bill should merely operate to give stringent powers to the Privy Council.

MR. CUMMING-BRUCE wished to know, as all changes of occupation took place on the 15th of May in Scotland, whether there was any power to enable the movement of stock under those circumstances?

THE LORD ADVOCATE said, he was not certain what would be the effect of the Amendments which had been made to the Bill by the Lords; but he was under the impression that cattle could be removed with the consent of the local Boards otherwise than by railway.

SIR JOHN TROLLOPE said, he had conferred with his constituents, and found them decidedly unfavourable to the Bill of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire. They thought that if they had a responsible Government in the country, on an occasion of great emergency like this, they were the persons to bring forward a Bill of this kind, and they were only confused by having a Bill prepared by a private Member running side by side with the Government measure. Her Majesty's Government did not object to Amendments. The difficulty which the people experienced was in stocking farms and in moving stock. A great sheep fair was held in his neighbourhood the other day; but on account of the difficulty of moving the animals (in one adjoining county they could move them, in another they could not) the magistrates were obliged to attend in order that the animals might be allowed to get out of the fair. The time for holding the great fairs was approaching, and how was the business of the country to be carried on? He

MR. ACLAND said he entirely differed from the hon. Member for Northamptonshire, who, he earnestly hoped, would take the advice of the hon. Baronet who had just spoken (Sir John Trollope) and drop the Bill altogether. What they wanted in addition to the action of the local authority was the supervision of one responsible Minister, who was liable to question at all times as to the operation of the Orders in Council.

MR. BEACH protested against the doctrine that Parliament should delegate its power to the Privy Council. It was quite right that power should be so exercised during the recess; but when Parliament was sitting they were bound to legislate on all subjects as the wants of the country might demand. There were certain portions of this Bill which were urgently required, but which the Bill of the Government did not deal with, such as the removal of hides and manure, both of which produced very dire cases of infection. This Bill had been deeply considered by a Select Committee in another place; Parliament would not therefore be legislating in a hurry; and if they could not have a complete measure dealing with the whole subject they should pass this Bill as soon as possible.

MR. W. E. DUNCOMBE observed, that the action of the Privy Council had produced no effect whatever in stopping the cattle plague, whereas the system of legislation which had been adopted had had a most beneficial effect, as was evinced in the recent Returns. There had been a great diminution in the number of cattle attacked by the plague during the last week, and this he attributed in a very great degree to the effect of their legislation. The Government appeared not to think this question of great importance; but it was vital to the interests of the country, and was much more urgent than their Reform Bill, which nobody wanted and every one would be glad to get rid of. He called on the Government to deal with this question in a fair and statesmanlike way, and not leave the country in such an emergency to the action of the local authority.

MR. AYRTON thought the House was

He

culty in relation to this Bill. It had been struck out and another inserted prohibiting returned from the other House so mutilated all fairs and markets everywhere, without that it was almost impossible to proceed exception, for the next three months. with it without going into Committee on Where was the necessity of putting a stop the Lords' Amendments; but there would to fairs and markets-he might say, to the be great difficulty in dealing with them staple trade of the country in many cases consistently with the usages of the House. in these non-infected districts? A proposition had been made that the Go-earnestly hoped the case of these districts vernment should introduce a Bill to carry would be borne in mind. Sooner than this out its proposed enactments; and if the Bill should pass with all these Amendments Government would act on that suggestion he would prefer that they should be in the it might be the best mode of meeting the hands of the local authorities, acting under difficulty. He thought it would be a much the direction of the Privy Council; or, better course than proceeding with the better still, that the Government should present Bill. He must press on the Go- take up the matter, and pass a short and vernment that the situation was becoming simple Act, which, with the experience now extremely embarrassing. The justices in gained, they would be enabled to do, and Kent and Essex-no doubt wise and pru- which would probably give satisfaction in dent people-differed entirely from the view all quarters. taken of this question by both Houses of Parliament. They had undertaken to declare in the case of Kent that no manure should be taken from the metropolis into that county, and in the case of Essex that no manure should be taken there which might in any way propagate the plague or prove injurious. Thus they both shifted the responsibility from themselves; but persons engaged in removing manure from the metropolis might be subjected thereby to serious penalties. The metropolis was thus, as it were, in a state of blockade, and if some step were not taken in this matter, great expense must be incurred in sending that valuable commodity, which agriculturists so much required, to be sunk in the sea. The Government must either accept the responsibility of proceeding with this question, which was one of real emergency, or the House must be content to grope its way in dealing with the Bill now before them. If the Government would not lead the House, they must put them-related to that subject, to be proceeded selves under the leadership of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hunt), and be content to forego the aid of the immense staff of public servants who were paid for the assistance they could render in such a

case.

MR. PUGH said, it appeared to him that the non-infected districts were in a much worse condition as they now stood under the Bill, with all the Amendments it had received, than they were under the Bill as it left the House. Then there was a clause expressly exempting them from restrictions, and he had reason to believe that that clause was in perfect accord with the feelings of the inhabitants of the districts so situated. But it had been

MR. BARING said, he was exceedingly disappointed with the answer which the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt) had given to his request that he should inform the House what course he intended to take with the Amendments made in this Bill. The difficulty in which they were now placed arose thus. The hon. Gentleman, from the first taking what he properly called at the time an anomalous course, produced a Bill when the Government introduced their measure. That Bill, by consent of the Government, was read a second time, and committed without discussion ; and when the Government, in a division upon an Amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman, were, as he described, without any party motive, placed in a large minority, the hon. Gentleman proposed that all those portions of the Government measure which related to the movement of cattle should be abandoned, and that the Government should allow his Bill, so far as

with. To this course the Government assented in deference to the opinion of the House, as expressed in the division. The whole principle and main object of the Bill of the hon. Gentleman was to provide by legislative enactment the precise rules and regulations under which cattle should or should not be moved throughout Great Britain up to and after the 25th of March. The particular point to which the hon. Gentleman directed the attention of the House and desired the decision of Parliament was, under what regulations cattle should be moved after the 25th of March. That Bill had up to the present time undergone, probably, greater vicissitudes than any other measure ever introduced into that

а

MR. HUNT explained that he had withdrawn all the clauses relating to that point in order that the Government might deal with the question.

MR. BARING said, it was the first time he had heard that explanation.

MR. HUNT said, he had stated so in the House.

House. As originally introduced it con- expressly giving that power in so many sisted of sixty-two clauses, of which only words to the local authorities in many parts one was left untouched in the Bill as it now of England, to which the hon. Gentleman appeared before the House, and that was in all discussions on the subject had strongly simply a penalty clause. Eight more objected. The Bill, which professed to clauses of the sixty-two of the original lay down general regulations as to the Bill, and eight alone, remained in the Bill movement of cattle, was incumbered by so at sent down from the other House, and many exceptions that the exceptions bethose were very considerably amended, and came, in reality, the regulations. The none of them at all referred to any of the Bill, as sent to the House of Lords, made regulations as to the movement of cattle no attempt to provide by general regulaon account of which the hon. Member in- tions for what should take place after the troduced his Bill, either up to or after the 25th of March. 25th of March. The remaining fifty-three clauses of the Bill as originally introduced had been omitted in its progress through Parliament. The hon. Gentleman complained of the Fabian policy of the Government; but he (Mr. Baring) ventured to assert distinctly that from the first introduction of the Bill it was the desire of the Government, as it was undoubtedly his own wish and intention, to facilitate the passing of many portions of that Bill and make it useful measure. The slightest attention to dates might satisfy the hon. Gentleman that his charge of delay on the part of the Government had no foundation. The Bill, as he had said, was read a second time without discussion; it was committed without discussion; it was re-committed for Amendments without discussion. There was a second edition of the Bill before a word of discussion took place. The second edition of the Bill, as amended, was considered in Committee on the 19th and 20th of February, re-committed, and again considered in Committee on the 22nd, and passed on the 23rd. Now, considering the length of the Bill, of which there had been three separate prints, and the large paper of Amendments brought down night after night by the hon. Gentleman, the fact that it had gone through all its stages upon which any discussion took place in three days was surely a proof that the charge against the Government for attempting to obstruct the Bill was without foundation. With respect to the present position of the Bill it was not competent for them to discuss the proceedings of the other House; but with respect to the provisions of the Bill as sent up to their Lordships he might state, having gone into the investigation with the greatest care, that, whereas the Bill professed to lay down a uniform system, there were no fewer than fifteen exceptions to the rules laid down for the movement of cattle. Besides these, there were three

He did

MR. BARING would now describe to the House the condition of the Bill as it came down from the House of Lords. As sent up to the other House it consisted of fifty-four clauses and one schedule; twentyfour clauses and the schedule were struck out, and eleven new clauses were introduced in the other House. All the clauses relating to the movement of cattle were left out. It had been his duty to examine the Bill carefully to see whether it would be possible by introducing Amendments to make it a useful measure. not dispute that there were some useful clauses in it, and he had gone the length of putting his Amendments in print. The hon. Gentleman was aware that it was not competent for them in dealing with a Bill they had received from the other House amended to make any alteration except by disagreeing with or amending the Lords' Amendments, or making consequential Amendments on those Amendments. Well, the result of his most careful consideration of the Bill as brought down to them was, that even supposing-what was exceedingly improbable that every Amendment the Government proposed was accepted by the House without alteration-supposing what was still more unlikely, that the other House would be prepared to accept all those Amendments if the Bill passed in the shape in which he proposed to amend it, they would have a piece of legislation so complicated and so difficult to understand that it would not be right to recommend its adoption by the House. Legislation relative to the cattle plague

« PreviousContinue »