MR. H. A. BRUCE,
in rising to move the second reading of the Cattle Diseases Prevention Bill, and of the second Bill, the Cattle, &c., Importation Bill, said, that the subject had been considered with the care and attention which were due to its importance. The question was an extremely difficult one to deal with, because it was no easy matter to interfere effectually to prevent the spread of infectious diseases among cattle, without at the same time interfering unduly with the operations of the agriculturist. There were already four Acts relating to this subject in existence, and instead of incumbering the statute-book by adding to their number it was proposed to repeal those Acts and pass two others in their place, at once consolidating and amending the present law. As far as could be ascertained, there were in the United Kingdom nearly 8,000,000 head 1741 of cattle, thus distributed:—In England there were something over 3,500,000; in Ireland something over 3,250,000; and in Scotland about 1,000,000. The total number of sheep was about 40,000,000; and the total number of pigs 4,300,000. The aggregate value of that property, reckoning the cattle as worth £10 a head, the sheep at £1 each, and the pigs also at £1, was no less than £121,800,000. These figures indicated the magnitude and importance of the interests involved in this question. Disease among cattle had broken out with peculiar virulence during the last twenty years. In 1844 the first insurance office for cattle was founded, when it was estimated that premiums of from 3 to 3½ per cent would cover the risks of loss. Several insurance offices were started; but although the premiums were increased from 3 gradually up to 7 per cent, and although after a time the insurance offices refused to admit Irish cattle as being more afflicted with disease than other cattle, the largest offices came to a stand. In 1861, Mr. M'Minn (Superintendent for Scotland of the Agricultural Cattle Insurance Company, one of the most important of these establishments), published statistical tables which showed that in the six years from 1855 to 1860 inclusive the average annual mortality among 30,000 cattle insured was 1,474, or nearly 5 per cent, their average value being taken at £11 9s. 8d. a head. That was in Scotland. Applying these figures to the United Kingdom, the loss from disease in six years would be 2,225,000 head, or 375,000 head a year. The total value of the loss for the six years was £26,000,000, or £4,320,000 per annum. The annual death rate for sheep was estimated at 4 per cent, or in value £1,600,000 a year. In regard to pigs, the estimated loss in Ireland was 10 per cent; in England and Scotland it was much less; the total value of the loss of pigs in the United Kingdom averaging £1,200,000 a year. The aggregate annual value of the cattle, sheep, and pigs, lost by disease in the United Kingdom was, therefore, £6,120,000. The most fatal of those diseases was pleuro-pneumonia, from which, at least, half of the cattle died. In 1848 the annual report of the Agricultural Insurance Company stated, that in some districts thousands were carried off by this disease. So great, indeed, were its ravages, that nearly three-fourths of the losses for which claims were made on the Company, were the results 1742 of that incurable malady. It appeared to be generally admitted that at least one-half of the cattle died of this disease. With respect to the causes of this disease, doctors differed among themselves. Some said it was contagious, others that it was not contagious, but propagated as an epidemic. It was not for him to decide, but it seemed to him that the preponderance of argument was in favour of its being contagious. It might also occasionally arise spontaneously in some districts; but facts, he thought, proved that it was contagious. This disease, wherever it arose, was no doubt propagated by the transmission of cattle by ship from foreign countries. They were often driven a considerable way to the port of embarkation, huddled into ships, taken across the seas, exposed to great heat and suffering on board ship; they were taken ashore, put into trucks in which cattle had recently travelled infected with the same disease; and thus, both on shipboard and in the trucks, at fairs and other places of sale, the disease was necessarily propagated. It, therefore, seemed necessary to consider what provisions could be made to diminish the propagation of the disease from these causes. This course was taken when two years ago a fatal disease became rife among sheep, and much alarm was excited. He need not go into details as to other diseases—the foot and mouth disease—the scab in sheep, and measles in pigs. He had stated the number of deaths arising from disease; but that did not represent the whole extent of the mischief. There was another point of great social importance connected with this subject, and that was the question of meat. Within the last few years the price of beef and mutton had very considerably increased. Whether that was owing in any considerable extent to the amount of disease which prevailed among cattle, or whether it arose from the greater demand for butcher's meat in consequence of the increasing prosperity and wealth of the people, he could not undertake to decide. Probably the rise in price was attributable to both causes. But whatever the cause, there could be no doubt that an enormous mass of diseased meat, in various stages of disease, was annually sold. What the precise quantity was it would, of course, be difficult to estimate. Professor Gamgee estimated it at one-fifth of the whole. There was no conclusive evidence on the subject, although there was ample evidence that the quantities were 1743 very large, not only of meat killed while cattle were diseased, but of cattle which had died without the aid of the butcher. He took the case where the figures were beyond dispute. The deaths in dairies were most numerous. Professor Gamgee, who had turned his attention specially to the subject, had collected some interesting statistics from Edinburgh and Dublin, which he had arranged in a paper he had published on the subject. With respect to Edinburgh, Professor Gamgee gave Returns from 88 dairies for the year ending 1862. Out of 1,839 cows kept 1,075 were sold diseased, of which 791 were sold to butchers and 284 to be consumed by pigs. In nine dairies in Dublin, on an average of 20 years, out of 315 cows 161 were sold diseased. In Dublin it wag observable that cows being turned out to grass the greater part of the year were healthier than in the great towns. The loss in London, Manchester, &c., was equally great. These diseased cows were sold in Dublin fairs at from £2 to £5 each. In London and Edinburgh, where the facilities for sale were greater, at from £10 to £20. In London the seizures of diseased meat were very large, representing probably but a small part of those killed in a diseased state. He would on this subject read to the House an extract from Professor Gamgee's report. He says—In London I have seen butchers in private slaughter-houses dress extremely diseased carcasses and 'polish' the meat. This filthy practice consists in killing a good fat ox at the same time that a number of lean and diseased animals are being killed. Boiling water is at hand, and when the lean animals have been skinned their flesh is rubbed over with fat from the healthy ox, and hot cloths are used to keep the fat warm and to distribute it over the carcass, that it may acquire an artificial gloss and an appearance of not being totally deprived of fat. In Edinburgh I have seen sickly lambs without a particle of fat upon them dressed up with the fat of healthy sheep much in the same way. From the private slaughter-houses in London I have known even the diseased organs themselves sent to the sausage-maker. In company with another member of my profession, I have seen a carcass dressed and portions of it prepared for sale as sausage meat and otherwise, although thoracic disease had gone to such an extent that gallons of fetid fluid were removed from the pleural sacs and that large abscesses existed in the lungs.In Edinburgh there were between 100 and 200 diseased cattle sold weekly in the meat market; and as to Dublin, he would read an extract from The Times, dated December 17, 1862:The Royal Dublin Society met on Saturday 1744 evening to hear a lecture from Professor Gamgee on disease and mortality among cattle. When he had concluded, Mr. Ganley, salesmaster, made an extraordinary statement. He said, that unless some means were devised to give the farmer some compensation for diseased cattle, it was impossible to prevent him from selling them, or the butcher from killing and selling them. Unless some society were formed to have diseased meat paid for, it would be killed and eaten. There was no use in mincing the matter, every one of the salesmen sold diseased cattle. The farmer could not otherwise pay his rent. The disease is so prevalent that he could not live were he to submit his cattle to destruction.Then came the question, Did the consumption of this diseased meat lead to disease in the human frame? On this point no very decisive evidence could be quoted. Of course, disease existed in very different proportions. To many, in most cases, it probably did no positive harm. The heat and process of cooking purified the vitiated meat, and what Mr. Simon called "the strong disinfectant chymistry of digestion" deprived it of much of its danger. Still, the positive existence of disease communicated by diseased meat was very strong. He would read one or two extracts bearing on this point—Professor Maclagan, of the University of Edinburgh, stated at a public meeting held in Edinburgh on the 29th of January, 1862, that in his practice, both as a physician and a toxicologist, he had met with instances in which several persons had been attacked simultaneously with irritant symptoms after having in common partaken of meat which on being examined was found to contain no poison, nor to be in that state of putrescence which, as is well known, occasionally confers upon animal matters actively poisonous properties.Dr. Alfred S. Taylor, F.R.S., in a letter of the 12th of January, 1863, said—As a general principle, I think diseased meat noxious and unfit for human food.He, moreover, adds—In the course of my practice I have met with several cases of poisoning which appeared to be attributable to diseased or decomposed meat—more frequently the latter. I can at present recall to my recollection only two fatal cases—one from diseased mutton, the sheep having had the staggers, and one from German sausages. Animal food has been frequently sent to me with a view to the detection of poison, the persons sending it having the impression that from the vomiting and purging produced poison must have been mixed with it. No poison has, however, been found to justify this suspicion.Dr. Letheby stated—My opinion of the injurious effects of diseased meat on the health of those who make use of it is very decided. I have seen so much mischief from it, that I do not hesitate for one moment to say that some legislative measure is most press- 1745 ingly wanted to prevent, not only the traffic in diseased meat, but also to prevent the slaughtering of diseased animals. Such regulations are now in operation everywhere on the Continent, and they are much needed here. In the City markets alone my officers seize from one to two tons of diseased meat every week. Last year we seized 110,046 lb. of meat, of which 78,697 lb. were diseased, and 13,944 lb. from animals that had died. We often pursue the offenders into a court of justice, and have them fined or imprisoned; but I feel that the mischief should be stopped before it reaches the markets. Officers are wanted to examine the cattle before they are slaughtered. As to the effects of such meat on the human subject, I have seen many cases of illness from it. One of these is sufficiently important to bring under your notice. In the month of November, 1860, a part of a diseased cow was bought in Newgate Market. It came from one of the cow-houses in London. It was bought by a sausage-maker of Kingsland, and, as is commonly the case with very bad meat, it was made up into sausages. Sixty-six persons partook of the sausages, and sixty-four of them were made very ill. They were purged, became sick, giddy, and the vital powers were seriously prostrated, and they lay in many cases for hours in a state of collapse, like people with cholera. One man died, and I was requested by the coroner to inquire into the matter. I obtained some of the sausages, thinking that a mineral poison might be present, but I could discover none; and the whole history of the case showed that it was diseased meat which had done the work. Again, Dr. Livingstone tells us that whenever the natives of Africa eat the flesh of an animal that has died from pleuro-pneumonia, no matter how the flesh is cooked, they suffer from carbuncle. Now, it is a very remarkable fact that boils and carbuncles have been most prevalent in this country for several years past. The Registrar General for Scotland has drawn attention to this fact.And here he was bound to say that the corporation of London had been signalized by its exertions in endeavouring to prevent the sale of diseased meat within their jurisdiction. And Professor Gamgee said—My own observation confirm the opinions of the eminent authorities just quoted. I have known in many instances where meat supplied to students in lodging-houses in this city has led to vomiting, purging, and severe colic. In the majority of instances such meat was cooked in the form of a beefsteak. Three of my own students were affected simultaneously one day in December last. Within a couple of hours after dinner they experienced colicky pains, purging, vomiting, and these symtoms lasted several hours. Bread, potatoes, and water, were the only other materials they had partaken of at dinner. On another occasion two were affected, but did not attribute the injury to the steak until the next day, when the servant ate what had been left of the meat, and suffered severely.He thought he had shown that, although it was possible to consume a large portion of diseased meat without any positive harm arising, nevertheless it was equally true that the consumption of meat in an im- 1746 proper state was calculated seriously to affect the health of the consumers. But whether all diseased meat was or was not of a poisonous character, there could be hardly a doubt of the fact that such food was not of a nutritious character. This was an evil which did not tell so much upon the rich, who could take care of themselves, as upon those who depended for their support upon the maintenance of their physical strength. When he had the honour of introducing the Bakehouse Bill of last year, he had brought forward facts showing that there was a vast quantity of bread baked containing matters which were not of a nutritious character. Considering then, that in the two important articles of consumption, bread and meat, there were large quantities consumed which were not only not nutritious but positively dangerous to health, he thought the House would not require further evidence to justify an earnest inquiry into the subject. It was now his duty to inform the Committee what had been the course of the Legislature upon this subject. The importation of cattle commenced in 1842, and he thought there could be no doubt a good deal of disease might be traced to the importation of diseased cattle. At this moment, however, he believed that the foreign cattle that arrived at our ports daily were apparently in a better state than some of those which arrived from distant parts of the United Kingdom; and there was a greater necessity for guarding against the introduction of diseased cattle from Ireland and Scotland than from foreign countries. It so happened, however, that legislation had provided the means for checking the importation of diseased cattle from foreign sources, but not from parts of the United Kingdom. The existing Acts regulating this subject were the 11 & 12 Vict. c. 105, commonly called the "Cattle Diseases Prevention Act," and the Customs Consolidation Act, 1853 (16 &c. 17 Vict. c. 107, s. 44.) The 11 & 12 Vict. c. 105, by its preamble, authorized the issue of Orders in Council for preventing or regulating the importation of animals from parts beyond the seas where infectious or contagious diseases prevail. The expression "parts beyond the seas" had been held to refer to foreign countries, and therefore we had no power to interfere with cattle imported from Scotland or Ireland, or from any ports in England. The only change proposed to be made by the present Bill was 1747 to authorize the issue of general regulations with respect to the importation of cattle, whether from parts beyond the seas, or from one part of the United Kingdom to the other. The Act was strictly confined to the importation of live animals. The 16 & 17 Vict. c. 107, s. 44, includedInfected cattle, sheep or other animals, and hides, skins, horns, and hoofs, or any other part of cattle or other animals which Her Majesty may by Order in Council prohibit, in order to prevent any contagious distemper.The two Acts taken together would appear large enough to enable Her Majesty in Council to make any restrictions whatever with respect to animals or parts of animals. It had, however, been considered that "Order in Council" meant an Order in Council passed not under the Customs Act, but under the 11 & 12 Vict. c. 105, and did not extend to cattle imported from one part of the United Kingdom to the other. The object of this Bill, therefore, was to make it clear that Her Majesty might regulate the importation of cattle from one part of the United Kingdom to the other, as well as from foreign parts. Provision was also made for the purification of ships bringing cattle to this country. This could be done at little cost or inconvenience; and in this way, no doubt, they would get rid of a fruitful cause of disease. It had been suggested that the great object should he to stop the evil at the port of shipment. They could not, of course, send agents to Rotterdam or Hamburg for this purpose, but it was said they might send them to Leith, Glasgow, Belfast, and stop the diseased cattle there. On that subject, he had consulted the best practical authorities, and he was informed that the inconvenience would be very great if this measure were resorted to. In the first place, the disease usually showed itself after the cattle had landed in this country, not before. In the next place, it would be necessary to stop the droves of cattle as they arrived at the port of embarkation, often after arrangements had been concluded for their shipment. That would cause great inconvenience. He had, therefore, abandoned that suggestion. It was his intention to propose that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee upstairs; and if, after examining the whole matter, more effectual methods could be suggested of arresting disease than those provided in the Bill, there would be no difficulty, on the part of the Government, in accepting them.
1748 He now came to the other Bill, with respect to diseased cattle. By common law, the bringing a horse infected with glanders, or cattle or sheep with any contagious disease, into a public place was an indictable offence. But that was confined to public places; for in the case of "Cooke v. Waring" Chief Justice Erie decided that the selling a glandered horse at a horse repository was not an indictable nuisance, although no notice of the disease was given to the purchaser, whose horses were infected and died. At common law, therefore, the bringing of cattle suffering from contagious disease into a fair or market would be an offence punishable by indictment. The statute law relating to diseased animals was contained in the 11 & 12 Vict. c. 107, and 16 & 17 Vict. c. 62. These Acts were temporary, and continued to the 1st of August, 1864, or the end of the next ensuing Session. The 11 & 12 Vict, related chiefly to sheep-pox. It empowered local authorities to seize and detain any animal affected with that disease, and imposed a penalty of £20 on any person turning out any sheep or lambs infected with this disease on common land. By section 4 power was given to Her Majesty in Council to prohibit the removal from specified places of any animals affected with a contagious disease, and of enforcing the most stringent precautions with respect to the burial of diseased animals, and the destruction of articles likely to propagate infection. The 16 &c. 17 Vict. c. 62 extended only to imposing a penalty on persons turning out glandered horses in common fields. The object of the present Bill was to repeal these two statutes, and to consolidate and to extend the existing law. The Bill was divided into six parts. Part I. made it an offence—first, to turn out in any unenclosed land any diseased cattle; secondly, to place them in a field insufficiently fenced; thirdly, to take them along a highway without due precaution; and fourthly, to expose for sale in any place, public or private, any diseased cattle; penalty for such offences not to exceed £20. It also provided that if the owner of a diseased animal knowingly sell it to a purchaser, without notice of disease, he shall, in addition to the penalty imposed by the Act, be deemed guilty of fraud in making the sale, and be liable for damages to the extent of the injury inflicted upon the purchaser. Part II. repeated and somewhat enlarged the 11 &c. 12 Vict. c. 107, enabling Her Majesty to make regu- 1749 lations with respect to the disposal of the meat, hides, horns, and offal of diseased cattle, and to do an; other thing advisable for preventing the spread of disease among cattle. Part III. was new. It required every railway or canal company to cleanse the trucks and boats in which they carried cattle, and to water the cattle once in twelve hours. He believed there would be no insuperable difficulty in this, and there could be no doubt of the great cruelty and mischief of the existing practice in that respect. It also authorized railway, canal, and other companies to refuse to carry diseased cattle. Part IV. was partly new. The 11 & 12 Vict, authorized the appointment of Inspectors with power to seize any sheep or lambs exposed for sale at any market or fair, and to destroy the pens, litter, &c. This Act extended the authority of the Inspector to all cattle at fairs or markets, which he might examine and exclude if he thought them infected with any contagious or infective disease. This portion of the Bill also defined the local authorities, and provided for their payment. Part V. made all penalties recoverable in a summary manner. Part VI. repealed existing Acts, and declared all Orders in Council now in force not to be affected. The Act was made to extend to Scotland and Ireland. He believed he had now stated the object and the nature of the Bill. As he stated at the commencement, he was fully aware of the great difficulty and delicacy of the task, but, being aware of the enormous evils that existed, they ought not to rest satisfied until they took such means as were in their power to check and remedy them. He now moved the second reading of these Bills, and, if the House agreed to that, he should move that they be referred to a Select Committee.
said, the hon. Gentleman had not only drawn a true but melancholy picture of the diseased state of our cattle. Free trade, they had often been told, was a blessing to the country; but with regard to the importation of cattle it was a curse, because they heard but very little of it before 1844, when the first cattle insurance company was originated. The high price of meat was attributed by many to increased consumption; but he considered it 1750 was owing to the disease, for whilst beef and mutton had gone up in price, pork was unusually low. The foot and mouth disease, though it was not so fatal as pleuropneumonia, had a most serious effect on the prosperity of the grazier, for there was scarcely a beast that was brought to the fair or market that did not show the disease in a fortnight after it had been turned into the pastures after its purchase. He Lad, however, not much faith in their being able to stem the mischief, which had been produced by the adoption of the late Sir Robert Peel's free trade measure.
§ MR. CAIRD
said, it would be erroneous to attribute the increase of disease solely to the importation of foreign cattle under free trade; it might with equal truth be attributed to the artificial state in which we kept our cattle and their high feeding. The high price of butchers' meat occasioned by the increased consumption, had the effect of inducing farmers to develop the meat-producing powers as much and as quickly as possible, and the consequence was that cattle, instead of being kept till they were seven or eight years old, were killed in the majority of cases about two years old. He had no hesitation in saying that the development of disease arose, in a great measure, from that highly artificial state, much more than from the importation of foreign cattle, and it was no exaggeration to say that all the meat brought to market was in consequence in a partially diseased state. As a counter-statement to that made by the Under Secretary of State relative to the injury arising from the use of diseased meat, it was but right to state that since the increased consumption of meat by the working classes, owing to the increased wages, the insurance tables showed increasing longevity. Professor Gamgee was at the beginning, the middle, and the end of the hon. Gentleman's speech, and he cautioned him against being guided by Professor Gamgee's opinion as a practical man; for the introduction of the foot and mouth disease into the schedule was no evidence of any practical knowledge being employed in the preparation of the Bill. The foot and mouth disease was of a temporary character, and generally passed off in the course of a week. It was an inconvenience and a loss which they must put up with. He hoped a distinction would be taken between different kinds of markets. A store market where lean cattle were bought for fattening, and a stock market where the cattle were bought for 1751 immediate slaughtering, were very different. It was alleged that there would be a difficulty in inspecting the ports of departure in Scotland and Ireland. It was well known that some of the best cattle came from Scotland and from Ireland. These cattle might be in perfect health when shipped, and yet be rejected when they arrived in London in consequence of disease contracted in the passage. That must be considered, as the owner in such a case could not be considered as accountable for sending diseased cattle to market. A Bill of a somewhat similar character had been proposed some years back, and was referred to a Select Committee, who, after hearing evidence, decided that it was inexpedient to legislate in the manner proposed. He thought it not unlikely that a similar opinion might be pronounced upon this Bill. At the same time, it was possible that the Bill might be modified so as to be made a useful measure, and therefore it was right that the subject should be inquired into.
§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, he had listened with much pleasure to the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Home Department, but was rather inclined to agree with the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, that some of the statements which had been put forth were rather highly coloured. Upon the present occasion he would only remark that, as the only mode of proceeding was by Order in Council, those Orders in Council should, except in cases of emergency, be published some time before being put in force, in order that there might not be undue injury inflicted upon legitimate trade. He would also suggest that it would be advisable to license dealers who would exercise a watchful supervision over the proceedings of unscrupulous dealers. He feared that the system of inspection must be carried to a highly inquisitorial extent, unless it was accompanied by a system of licensed dealers, who would discountenance improper dealings on the part of others.
§ MR. HOLLAND
said, that the Bill introduced last year for the prevention of contagious diseases in sheep originated with him, and not with Professor Gamgee. He desired to remind the hon. Member for Leicestershire (Mr. Packe), that long before foreign cattle were imported into this country very extensive disease had prevailed among our cattle. He might mention 88 an instance the murrain which prevailed in the middle of the last century, 1752 and which was so remarkable as to be mentioned in a Royal Speech. He hoped the Committee to which these Bills would be referred would thoroughly consider the subject of inspection. At present the Inspectors at some of the ports were broken-down tradesmen, quite ignorant of their duties, and only appointed because they had friends who were members of the corporation.
hoped the hon. Gentleman who had introduced the Bill would give him a pledge to allow the Highland Society of Scotland to have a fair discussion on the subject before the Committee.
§ MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONS
, as a magistrate of London, had had experience of the great extent to which the trade in unsound meat was carried on in the metropolis, notwithstanding all the efforts of the corporation to repress it. The present law was inadequate to meet the evil, it was almost impossible to convict the really guilty parties, and something should be done to put an end to practices which were so injurious to the public.
§ SIR WILLIAM MILES
said, that the Under Secretary for the Home Department deserved their thanks for introducing these Bills at the earliest possible moment. No one was more convinced than he (Sir William Miles) of the necessity of legislating for the prevention of the transfer of diseased cattle and the sale of infectious and poisonous meat. The means of transit were now so quick between the metropolis and different parts of the country, that diseased meat could be readily sent up to the metropolis for consumption. Considerable difficulties would be found when the Bill got into Committee, but he hoped that the whole question of diseases would be gone into, and the cure of those diseases. The evidence should be taken, not only from the north of England, but from all parts of the country, and especially from Wiltshire, where the last epidemic prevailed. He trusted that the result would be the production of a good practical measure, which would prevent the farmers from being injured by the transmission of disease from one part of the country to another. There would be the greatest difficulty in dealing with the foot and mouth disease; but as to the other diseases mentioned in the schedule he hoped that some sound legislation would be adopted.
hoped that the Committee would give their attention to the foot and mouth disease, which was a disease of a most serious character.
§ SIR MICHAEL SHAW STEWART
regretted that further time had not been given for the consideration of the matter. He feared that the Bill, if passed in its present shape, would completely paralyze the operations of the farmers and graziers of Scotland, and therefore ample time should be allowed for them to consider it.
said, he hoped it would be understood that the Committee would be allowed to take evidence, and would not merely be limited to a consideration of these Bills. [Mr. H. A. BRUCE assented.] The statement of the Under Secretary, that one-fifth of the meat consumed in this country was diseased, was of so grave a nature that, if it were well founded, very serious inquiry was needed. He saw an enormous evil stated to exist, and he feared there would be found great difficulty in deciding how to deal with it. If the disease was imported from abroad, he was sorry that the evil had not been met by stopping the importation of foreign cattle. Inspection on arrival was not an easy task, for lung disease in an incipient state could only be detected by auscultation, and a nice treat it must be for an Inspector to go about with a stethoscope among a herd of wild bullocks.
§ Motion agreed to
§ Bill read 2°; and Cattle, &c., Importation Bill read 2°; both Bills committed to a Select Committee.
§ And, on March 18, Committee nominated as follows:—
§ Mr. BRUCE, Lord NAAS, Mr. CAIRD, Mr. LEADER, Mr. MILLER, Mr. LESLIE, Mr. HODGKINSON, Mr. HUNT, Mr. THOMPSON, Colonel BARTTELOT, Mr. HOLLAND, Mr. BENTINCK, Mr. Cox, Sir WILLIAM MILES, Mr. Alderman SALOMONS, Mr. ALGERNON EGERTON, and Sir THOMAS BURKE:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.
§ And, on April 8th, Mr. JOSEPH EWART and Mr. BEERCROFT added.
§ House adjourned at Ten minutes before Six o'clock.