In this section LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH said 66 the expression county" shall mean a county excluding any burgh or police burgh situate therein.'"-(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.) On Question, Amendment agreed to. Clause 98. Drafting Amendments agreed to. LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH said the new sub-section of which he had given notice was also in pursuance of a pledge given to the Leith Harbour Board. It was an agreed clause. Amendment moved "In page 46, line 43, after the word 'trustees' to insert as a new sub-section : 'Nothing in this Act contained shall affect or prejudice the provisions of any Act relating to the Harbour and Docks of Leith, Aberdeen, Dundee, or Greenock.'"-(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.) On Question, Amendment agreed to. Clauses 99 to 100 agreed to. Clause 101. It present LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH said this clause was unnecessary. was inserted in both the Bill and the Town Councils (Scotland) Bill, which would be considered later in the afternoon; it was not required in both Bills, and it was proposed to omit it from the Burgh Police Bill. Amendment moved "To leave out Clause 101."-(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.) On Question, Amendment agreed to. Drafting Amendments agreed to. Drafting Amendments agreed to. there was only one Amendment of importance in the Schedule, and that was in connection with slaughter-houses. An Amendment had been inserted in the other House, the effect of which was to allow slaughter-houses to be erected close up to the boundary of the burgh. It was thought to be fair that, as slaughterhouses in burghs were under public control and regulation, private enterprise should not he allowed to undersell them. just outside the burgh, and that if there were to be other slaughter-houses, as he thought there ought to be, they should be under the regulation of a public authority-either the Burgh Council or the County Council. That was the effect of the Amendment, and he thought he might say the proposal was agreed to. Amendment moved or "In page 63, column 2, after line 10, to insert at end of section the words is provided by a local authority other than a town council, and in such last-mentioned case notice of the proposal to provide a slaughterhouse shall be given by such local authority to the town council of the burgh, and the town council may, within one month after receipt of such notice, appeal to the Local Government Board for Scotland against such proposal, and the decision of the Board shall be final.' (Lord Balfour of Burleigh.) On Question, Amendment agreed to. Moved, to leave out pages 64, 65, and 66.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.) On Question, Motion agreed to. Standing Committee negatived. Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been suspended), Amendments reported. Bill read 3, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons. TOWN COUNCILS (SCOTLAND) BILL. House in Committee (according to Order). [The Earl of MORLEY in the Chair.] Clause 8 agreed to. Standing Committee negatived then (Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been suspended), Amendments reported; Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons. LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH Amendment, by leave of the Com said he was obliged, with great regret, to mittee, withdrawn. ask the House to strike out this clause. The point was that at present there was one register for Parliamentary voters, and the municipal and County Council registers were practically the same. The muni- | cipal elections were held in November upon the new register, which came into force on 1st November, but the nominations had to take place in October on the old register. Candidates were thus nominated on one register and elected on another. That arrangement had caused a certain amount of inconvenience, and the object of the clause was to do away with the difficulty by bringing the new register into force before 20th October, the date of the nominations. He was sorry to say that had been found to be impossible, and that reform could not be effected. He had, therefore, with reluctance, to move the omission of the clause. Amendment moved ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL. SHEEP SCAB BILL. Order of the Day for the Second Readng, read. Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBER "To leave out Clause 7."—(Lord Balfour of LAND: In moving that this Bill be read Burleigh.) a second time this day three months, I have to say that there has been a somewhat serious misunderstanding between the agriculturists of this country and the Board of Agriculture; but I hope I may be allowed at the outset to say that I do not in any way wish to impute anything approaching a breach of faith to my noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture. Everyone who knows my noble friend knows that he is incapable of committing a breach of faith, and I should be the very last person in this House to wish even to hint at such a thing. But I do think that probably the fact that he was not at the Board of Agriculture when this Bill was brought forward, and was not personally acquainted with the negotiations which took place at that time, has led him into some error with regard to what then passed and was understood to be the course subsequently to be pursued in regard to this measure. This Bill was introduced into the House of Commons on 24th March, read a second time on 31st March, and sent to the Standing Committee on Trade the same day. The moment the Bill was introduced there was a very strong feeling against it on the part of large sheep farmers, at any rate in the North of England, and I know the feeling existed It was clearly understood by these in other parts of the country. The next gentlemen that that meant that a conthing that happened was that the siderable portion of the matters which northern branch of the Land Agents are included in this Bill would be conSociety a very important society of sidered by the Committee, and that any land agents, embracing most of the legislation which took place would be leading land agents in England-based upon the Report of that Comthe northern branch covering Northum- mittee. The Committee has not yet berland, Durham, and Yorkshire reported, and there is not much chance passed a resolution against the measure. of its reporting for some months to That Resolution was forwarded to the come. What corroborates my statement Board of Agriculture. The same thing that the objectors to the measure were was done in divers parts of the country; justified in considering that the Bill was I cannot say how many districts took dead is the fact that from 31st March that course, but I know that the Oswestry down to 7th August nobody ever heard of Town Council petitioned against the the Bill at all. I suppose the Standing Bill, and that the Cheshire Chamber of Committee on Trade heard of it, but Agriculture passed a resolution against nobody outside that Committee were aware of its continued existence. On 7th August, to the astonishment of every one, it was brought up in the House of Commons to be considered as amended. I at once received representations from the gentlemen who had objected to the Bill before calling attention to the matter. I naturally replied that it was no use my doing anything unless the objectors bestirred themselves and represented to the Board of Agriculture their view of the situation. Your Lordships are aware how very difficult it is to move people in the country, especially agriculturists, but notwithstanding that, I think I am right in saying that during the last week a considerable number of letters, protesting against this measure being proceeded with in its present form, have been rece ved by the Board of Agriculture. I think it is a somewhat strong proceeding to leave a measure untouched; from 31st March to 7th August, and then to carry it through its stages in the House of Commons and bring it up to this House on 12th August and, as I suppose is the intention. to take all its stages in one day. it. Then there was an interview between many of those interested in the question, and the late President of the Board of Agriculture, who was also to have met the northern agriculturists at Newcastle towa ds the end of April, but unfortunately his sad illness prevented him going. Major Craigie took his place, and there was a large and important gathering. I may mention that those who appeared on that occasion included such men as Sir Jacob Wilson, who is known to many Members of this House; Mr. Stevenson, one of the leading veterinary surgeons in the North of England; and Sir Henry Scott, who was selected by the Board of Agriculture, as a typical sheep farmer, to be placed upon the Committee appointed by the Board to consider the question of the dipping of sheep. The result of all these negotiations was that it was understood, at any rate by those who went to the Board of Agriculture, that this Bill was practically dead, and that an inquiry would be held into the question of sheep dips, as it appeared that nobody knew what was the best dip to be used. Lest it should be said that that Com mittee to which I referred was appointed to consider only the particular kind of dip to be used, I may remind your Lordships that the reference to the Committee also included- "The times and intervals at which sheep should be treated or dressed, regard being had to the life history and characteristics of sheep scab and other parasites, and to the practical conditions under which sheep farming is carried on in various parts of the United Kingdom." It is true that the Bill comes before. is only one Amendment of any imyour Lordships as amended, but there. portance, and that, I admit, is a very valuable one. In the original Bill it was proposed that public dipping places. should be established. Everybody who. knows anything about sheep scab knows perfectly well that you can have no. better plan for spreading the disease than that of public dipping places to which all sheep must go. This evil has been avoided by the Amendment, but that is. the only Amendment of any importance an effective dipping of sheep. It is which has been made in the Bill. In all admitted, I believe, that nobody has ye other respects the Bill is exactly the made up his mind as to what an effective same measure as was so strongly objected dip is. Your Lordships are aware that 10, and which it was supposed had been sheep dipping may be a very dangerous dropped. The representations to the operation and one which may be Board of Agriculture have come from conducted in a manner which will all parts of the country. I cannot state do great harm to sheep and to the them all, but I know that they have farmers. I was told the other day by a come from Wales, Cheshire, Lancashire, leading agriculturist that there was Wiltshire, Yorkshire, Shropshire, and only one dip in the world really worth Northumberland; they have come from anything. I do not know how that landowners, farmers, land agents, and may be, but it does seem to me to be veterinary surgeons. In fact, there have a little thing to ask that, if that is really been protests against the Bill from all the case, this Committee which the Board sides, and I should like to know-as of Agriculture have themselves appointed, doubtless there are some parts of the should report before you pass a Bill country which are anxious for the Bill-requiring effective dipping, which you how many representations have been made in its favour. I will read a short extract from a letter which I received from Sir Henry Scott who, as I have said, was appointed upon the Sheep Dipping Committee by the Board of Agriculture. He writes I "Farmers generally are much against the Bill. The feeling in the North of England was expressed strongly by the farmers who met Major Craigie in conference at Newcastle. have never seen so numerous or influential a meeting of farmers. I believe most farmers were of the opinion that the Bill would never be brought forward." I think, therefore, I am justified in saying that it was understood that the Bill would be dropped. I had better read another sentence from this letter. Sir Henry Scott says “I have a good excuse for having a decided opinion on such matters. Probably there is no man living who has had a more extended experience than I have in the counties of Sutherland, Ross-shire, Inverness-shire, Argyllshire, and Northumberland, in hill land, pasture land, and arable land.” Under these circumstances I ask, is it so very necessary to pass this Bill? If there is such a very strong feeling against it, is it necessary to force it through this session against the desire of those who are interested that it should be dropped, and who have not carried on the agitation against it, which no doubt they would have done, if they had had any idea that it was to be proceeded with? There is another reason why the Bill should not be carried farther. One of the provisions is that there should be The Duke of Northumberland. are not at present in a position to define. That is an important matter, but it is not the real crux of the Bill. What is felt very strongly by agriculturists is that if you want to put a stop to sheep scab you must do it by a compulsory and universal measure. No infectious disease amongst animals, so far as I know, has ever been put a stop to except by universal compulsion. You have stamped out cattle plague, foot-andmouth disease, and hydrophobia by enactments of universal application, and you have failed to stamp out swine fever because you have not had provisions of general application. interference with the business of a I must remind your Lordships that farmer, saying he shall not do this or he shall do that, is a great annoyance, and to a certain extent an injury to his trade. Farmers are perfectly willing, nay anxious, to submit themselves to such restrictions, if they are necessary and well adapted to the purpose of putting a stop to infectious a code of rules to be brought in which disease, but they are not willing to allow shall apply to one part of the country and not to another-rules which will render a farmer liable to be infected from districts to which the provisions do not apply, while he himself is restricted in every way in the following of his calling. I want to make it perfectly clear that those for whom I am speaking are most anxious for some legislation on the point. I copied this extract the other day from a letter which appeared in the Press from a leading sheep-farmer in the North "There is not a single Sheep-breeders' Association in Northumberland that has not over and over again urged on the Board of Agriculture the necessity of making dipping compulsory-the National Sheep-breeders' Association among them. But it is a very different thing to put it into the hands of local authorities to carry it out, and only to have it carried out where these local authorities wish to do so." I have here a letter from a leading land agent; he is agent to a very large landed property, and he has had much experience in different parts of the country. He writes areas. "I hope I have made it clear that there is a strong feeling in favour of compulsory dip ping. The objection to the present Bill is that, after taking the necessary powers, the Board of Agriculture hand them over to the local authorities, who can act only within their own If a man in Scotland has scab in his flock, and sells 500 sheep in, say, five lots, to different purchasers in different parts of the -country, one of whom resides in Oxfordshire, the man may report scab, and the Oxfordshire County Council may act promptly, but though it may stamp it out there, it has no machinery to trace where the taint originally came from, nor will it trouble itself about where the other four lots have gone. All it can do is to report to the Board; so that the owner of the original Scotch flock may escape a dipping order altogether, and continue to spread the disease year after year, and the Board can only say that the local authorities have powers if they think fit to use them. The authority and responsibility alike should rest with the central authority, and no other course can stamp out the disease or satisfy agriculturists." I think I have given sufficient reasons for rejecting a Bill brought in under these circumstances, and, as it appears to me, so far as the agriculturists are concerned, by a misunderstanding. The measure is not calculated to do what agriculturists wish, and, like all legislation of this kind, which simply tinkers with a big and important question, it will cause the maximum amount of annoyance, while doing the minimum amount of good. I cannot myself see why the whole thing should not be deferred to another session. By that time, I presume this Committee will have reported; we shall then be in a better position to consider the whole question; the noble Lord will then be able to hear all there is to be said on the subject, and I sincerely trust we shall have a thoroughly good Bill dealing with what is really a very important matter. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time this day three months. Amendment moved "To leave out the word 'now' and add at the end of the Motion the words, 'this day three months.'"-(The Duke of Northumberland.) *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (The Earl of ONSLOW): I am very sorry indeed that the noble Duke should think that there has been any misunderstanding between the officials of the Board of Agriculture and the farmers who are interested in this question. I have looked very closely into the records-which, of course, are kept in the Department of the officials of the interviews between Board and the parties interested, and into the reports of the conferences which have taken place, especially the one at Newcastle-on-Tyne, to which the noble Duke has referred, but I have utterly failed to find any hint or suggestion that it was not intended to proceed with this Bill. It is quite true, as the noble Duke says, that in another place a considerable time elapsed between the Second Reading of the Bill and its consideration in Grand Committee and in Committee of the Whole House, but your Lordships are aware that there is great pressure on the time of another place, and some Bills have naturally to wait until near the close of the session. But it must have been perfectly well known to all those who represent those parts of the country which the noble Duke says are opposed to the Bill, that the measure was proceeding on its normal course. No representations were made; the Bill was read a second time, I believe, without debate; it was fully considered in Grand Committee; alterations to which the noble Duke has referred were made; and I do not think at any stage of its proceedings there was any suggestion that the Bill would be dropped. If there has been any misunderstanding, I venture to say it has been on the part of the farmers themselves. I think that misunderstanding more particularly relates to the intention and object of this Bill. This is not, as the noble Duke seemed to convey to your Lordships, a Bill for subjecting farmers to |