Commons Sitting of 24 July 1868

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Royal Gun Factories Committee [No. 459].
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Marriages Validity (Blakedown) * [250].
Committee—Regulation of Railways [142]—R.P.; Metropolitan Foreign Cattle Market (re-comm.) [139]—R.P.; District Church Tithes Act Amendment [246]—R.P.; Salmon Fisheries (Scotland)* [210]; Regulation of Railways* [142].
Report—Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) * [210]; Regulation of Railways [142].
Third Reading—Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections [243], and passed.
Withdrawn—Married Women's Property (re-comm.)* [89].
The House met at Two of the clock.

COURT OF CHANCERY AND COUNTY COURTS.—QUESTION.
MR. HARDCASTLEsaid, he wished to ask Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention has been called to a statement of Vice Chancellor Stuart's, in the case "Picard v. Hine," in which the Vice Chancellor refused to transfer the suit to a County Court on the ground that the costs in the County Courts exceeded those in the Court above; and, whether he is aware of the truth of this statement of Vice Chancellor Stuart's?
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, in reply, that he had received a communication from the chief clerk of Vice Chancellor Sir John Stuart on this subject. The result of that communication was this—that the chief clerk believed he did state in reply to a question from his Honour that the expenses to be incurred after the transfer of the case to a County Court would exceed those in the Court of Chancery. He went on to say that the opinion so expressed was formed from general impressions.

METROPOLIS—PARK LANE.—QUESTION.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he would beg to ask the hon. Member for Bath, Whether it is the intention of the Metropolitan Board of Works to give the necessary notices to the owners and occupiers of houses in Hamilton Place, in order to enable the next Parliament, should it think it expedient, to carry out the recommendations of the Private Bill Committee, to which was referred the Bill to widen and improve Park Lane?
COLONEL HOGGsaid, as the hon. Genleman appeared to be under some misapprehension, he would state exactly what had been done in this matter. The first Bill brought into Parliament by the Metropolitan Board of Works for improving Park Lane was in the Session of 1865; its object was to open a new public road or street in continuation of Hamilton Place (Sec. 7). The deposited estimate of expense was £10,000. The Bill went into Committee, but the Preamble was declared not proved. A further Bill was brought into Parliament by the Board in the Session of 1866 to widen and improve Park Lane on the west side. The capital sought to be raised was £120,000. The deposited Bill was withdrawn by order of the Board
1712
on account of the state of the Session. A further Bill was brought into Parliament by the Board in the Session of 1867 for the same improvement as mentioned in the Bill of 1866; the proposed capital was £120,000. The Bill was never proceeded with in Committee. A further Bill was brought in by the Board this Session for the same improvement, the capital proposed being £115,000. This Bill went into Committee, who declared the Preamble not to have been proved. The Metropolitan Board were, therefore, in some sort of difficulty. They had several meetings on the subject, and the matter had been referred to the surveyor to go into the matter thoroughly. That gentleman had now been about three weeks engaged on it, and expected to report next week about the various schemes and expenses. What the decision of the Board would be it was impossible for him to say, but he could assure the hon. Gentleman that they would endeavour next year to bring in some Bill or other for opening up Park Lane, and making it more convenient for the public than it was at present.

AGENTS AT THE FOREIGN OFFICE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether a Circular has been sent to Her Majesty's Missions Abroad, notifying that no person in the Diplomatic or Consular Service who has not now an Agent at the Foreign Office will be allowed to take one; and, whether it is intended to make any arrangement to enable those who will be without Agents to draw their salaries; and, if so, whether those who now have Agents will be allowed to profit by any such arrangement?
  LORD STANLEY, in reply, said, what had been decided and what the diplomatic and consular servants had been informed of was the adoption of a Minute, of which the following is an extract:—
  "That no Clerk or other person connected with the Foreign Office, except such as are at the date of this Minute (June 24, 1866) acting as Agents, shall hereafter, directly or indirectly, undertake to act as such for any of Her Majesty's diplomatic or consular servants."
  Diplomatists and Consuls have at the some time been reminded—
  "That there is no obligation on them to employ as an Agent a Clerk in the Foreign Office for any purpose whatsoever, and that they may entrust to any person whom they may choose to employ,

  1713
  unconnected with the Foreign Office, their Powers of Attorney, under which moneys becoming due to them may be regularly received."

CASE OF JAMES BELL.—QUESTION.
MR ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has received any communication on behalf of a lad of the name of James Bell, who was convicted on the evidence of three policemen at the Middlesex Sessions on the 28th day of March last, (but from evidence since obtained he is supposed to be innocent); whether any copy or original Confession of a man named Daly, who was convicted on the 21st instant at the Middlesex Sessions has been received at the Home Office; and, what course the Home Secretary intends to pursue in reference to the lad James Bell?
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, in reply, that that morning only the Papers to which the hon. Gentleman referred reached the Home Office, consisting of a Memorial from the accused in his own favour, to which was attached a statement of a person who was in custody. He had directed that the Papers should be immediately sent to the Assistant Judge who tried the case, in order that he might receive the learned Judge's notes and such comments as he might think fit to make upon the case before he took further steps in the matter.

NAVY—OLD SHIPS AND SHEERNESS DOCKYARD.—QUESTION.
MR. PEMBERTONsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, If the Government have come to any decision as to the mode of disposing of old ships; and, whether there is any truth in the report that the Government intended to close Sheerness Dockyard?
LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, in reply, that the mode in which old ships belonging to Her Majesty's Navy would be disposed of in future would depend upon the recommendations of the Committee now sitting upon the subject. There was no intention to close Sheerness Dockyard at present.

NAVY—TURRET AND BROADSIDE- SHIPS—QUESTION.
MR. SEELYsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, with reference to the extracts which he read on; the 2nd and 13th instant, If he will lay
1714
upon the Table of the House Copies in full of the Reports and Letters of Captain Macdonald, Captain Vansittart, Admiral Ryder, and one of the Officers of the Ocean, Captain Chamberlain, of Admiral Warden, Admiral Yelverton, Captain Foley, Captain Hood, Captain King Hall, and Captain Willes, relating to Turret and Broadside-ships, with the Letters (if any) proceeding from any officer in the Admiralty to which any of these Reports and Letters were replies?
LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, in reply, that he had received a letter from the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty to the effect that there would be no objection on his part to lay upon the table of the House the documents to which the hon. Member referred. Some of those documents were written under the supposition that they would not be published, and contained matters of a personal nature; but the hon. Member might feel assured that nothing material to the subject would be omitted.

CASE OF CHARLES PENNEL MEASOR.

  QUESTION.
  An hon. MEMBER, in the absence of Sir John Gray, said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House Copy of the Correspondence between Charles Pennell Measor, late sub-inspector of Factories and previously Deputy Governor in the Convict Service, and the Home Office, in reference to his claims for compensation for suggestions made by him for the improvement of the Convict system?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, in reply, that this was a Question which should be made perfectly clear to the House. The Question of the hon. Member was whether he would lay upon the table of the House a statement which a man made in his own favour in order to obtain compensation from the public? and, in reply, he (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) begged to state that he did not think it expedient that such a course should be adopted. This was a case where a gentleman who thought that he had done great service to the public had entered into a long correspondence with a particular Department of the Government for the purpose of obtaining a favourable consideration of his claims, which had been already rejected. The gentleman had other modes of bringing the correspondence before the

  1715
  public than that of having it laid upon the table of the House. Under these circumstances he could not consent to the request of the hon. Member.

OUTBREAK OF CATTLE PLAGUE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. LIDDELLsaid, he wished to ask the noble Lord the Vice President of the Privy Council a Question of which he had given him private Notice—namely, Whether his attention has been called to the report which has appeared in one of the morning journals that an outbreak of Cattle Plague had occurred on the Continent of Europe; and, whether any official information on the subject of that report has reached him; and, if not, whether he will take immediate steps to ascertain whether or not that report is accurate?
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, in reply, that about a week ago the Government received official intelligence that an outbreak of cattle plague had occurred in Egypt, and that morning he had seen a telegraphic communication stating that there had also been outbreaks of that disease in St. Petersburg and in other districts of Russia. He was not aware that any official intelligence had been received with respect to the latter occurrence, but he would take care to inform himself whether such was the case or not by nine o'clock that evening.

ELECTION PETITIONS AND CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS BILL.
(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Gathorne Hardy, Sir Stafford Northcote.)
ELECTION PETITIONS AND CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS BILL.

  [BILL 243]. THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Disraeli.)
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, he rose to move as an Amendment that the Bill be re-committed, with the object of bringing up a clause relating to election expenses. His object was not to reverse a decision already arrived at; but he was induced to take this course, because, in consequence of the tactics adopted by the Government, he had been prevented from adding to the clause on which the House divided yesterday a proviso which originally belonged to it, protecting constituencies against unnecessary and factious contests, and consequently a false issue had been raised,
  1716
  and many hon. Members voted against the clause who would have supported it if it had been accompanied with the proviso in question. Therefore he contended that he was justified in taking this, perhaps, unusual course, in order to obtain the decision of the House on a straightforward and intelligible issue. He proposed, if his Motion to re-commit the Bill were carried, to bring up the original clause, throwing the expenses of elections in boroughs and counties on the ratepayers, and to add to it the clause carried by his noble Friend the Member for West Riding (Viscount Milton), which was approved of by the highest authority in that House upon rating questions—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) and which enacted that, as regarded county elections, the expense should fall on the division of the county in which the election took place. Then he should also add the proviso proposed yesterday by the hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Leeman) requiring every candidate for whom a poll was demanded to deposit with the returning officer, in the case of a borough, £100, and in the case of a county, £200, which deposit would be forfeited in case the candidate did not poll one-fifth of the whole number of electors voting at the election. This proviso was an effectual safeguard against the nomination of sham candidates. His great desire was that before the subject was finally decided the House should have the opportunity of expressing its opinion in a clause properly framed and properly protected.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "now read the third time," in order to add the words "re-committed in respect of a Clause providing for returning officers' expenses out of rates,"—(Mr. Fawcett,)—instead thereof.
  MR. DIXONsaid, if there should be an objection to the proposed clause that it would not work well in the counties, they might in Committee make it applicable only to boroughs. He maintained that the expenses incurred at election contests by the returning officer would be reduced by one-half, or possibly by two-thirds, if those expenses fell upon the ratepayers instead of the candidates, in-asmuch as the latter were regarded by the builders as fair game, and plundered in a way to which the guardians of the ratepayers' money would never think of submitting. Last year, in the borough

  1717
  that he represented there was a contested election, and the expenses of the returning officer were £876. About 10,000 persons voted; but at the next election the number of voters would probably be three times as many, and the expenses of the returning officer would probably be increased in proportion. The Mayor of Birmingham, a man of great experience and capacity, and he might add, for the benefit of hon. Gentlemen opposite, a sound Conservative, had informed him last night that the ratepayers of that borough were quite willing that the cost should fall on them, and he added that the authorities of the town would be able to erect hustings and, booths at a much less cost than the candidate could; the same, he believed, might be said of all the boroughs throughout the kingdom. Personally he should hail any increase in the election charges with satisfaction, because it would lessen the chances of any opposition to his return on the part of gentlemen who were not able to expend is much as he could afford to; but he trusted that the House would not consent to any course which would make wealth the passport to that assembly. The squires of this country must not expect that they were to continue to be the only class who could get into the House; for he would warn them that the traders and manufacturers were rapidly passing them in wealth, and were prepared to spend more money to get into the House than the landed aristocracy could, and therefore it was for the interest of the landed gentry to oppose this clause. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government not to diminish the credit which he had obtained in reference to this measure from all parties throughout this country by resisting a clause which was received out-of-doors with so much favour.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, he could assure the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon) that one of the principal objects of the Bill, which he (Mr. Disraeli) had had the honour to introduce, was to prevent any undue advantage being given to wealth in the election of Members of Parliament; and he hoped that that purpose was apparent in most of its clauses. The hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) seemed to complain that he had not been fairly treated by the Government or the House in reference to his clause. But he (Mr. Disraeli) wished to remind the hon. Member and the House that they had never had from the hon. Member a complete
  1718
  proposition. On more than one occasion they had passed a clause, transferring the expenses of elections from the candidate to the locality for which the election took place; but whenever such a clause had been moved the hon. Member had declared that it must be accompanied by an arrangement that would save the constituencies from having to bear the charge of improper and vexatious contests. The hon. Gentleman had repeated that morning his statement that that was an indispensable portion of his proposition. But the hon. Gentleman had never brought that second half of his proposition before the House; and what did he tell thorn that morning? He said that if he had the opportunity given him at this period he would propose the original clause, transferring the expenses of elections to the constituencies, and, at the same time, would endeavour to accomplish the other part of his plan to protect the constituencies from vexatious contests, by proposing the clause which was brought, without Notice, under the consideration of the House yesterday of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Leeman), and which the House, so far as he (Mr. Disraeli) could form any opinion of their treatment of it, almost unanimously rejected. They rejected it because they preferred the proposition of the hon. Member for Northumberland (Mr. W. B. Beaumont), which they then proceeded to consider; but in the end they were obliged to reject that also. Therefore they had every reason to believe that no practical proposition could be advanced which would satisfactorily accomplish the hon. Gentleman's object, for the hon. Member had told them that some addendum was not only indispensably necessary but was an indispensable portion of his proposition. He (Mr. Disraeli) wished to say one word in reference to the course taken by Her Majesty's Government in regard to the original clause proposed by the hon. Member for Brighton. When that clause was passed, the Government thought it their duty to take the opinion of the Committee a second time upon it, because they felt that the final adoption of it in its imperfect state would probably involve them and the country in difficulties which could be scarcely exaggerated. It had been said that he had expressed great indignation on Monday last at the idea being suggested that Her Majesty's Government contemplated asking the House to re-consider this question. Now that was a complete misapprehension.

  1719
  He would not acknowledge that the sentiment he then expressed was one of indignation, and he must say that it was not an occasion when any indignation was necessary. Why should he feel indignant at the imputation that Her Majesty's Government thought it their duty to ask the House to re-consider the vote to which they had come? Nothing, certainly, was more disagreeable to Her Majesty's Government than to be obliged to ask the House to reconsider or rescind any vote; but if the Government felt it their duty to do so, the imputation of such an intention was not one that could cause any feeling of indignation in their minds. He had certainly expressed surprise at the inquiry made by the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), because as the hon. Gentleman himself then admitted, his inquiry was founded upon a mere rumour, and he did not think that the hon. Member for Bradford was justified in putting such a question to him from a mere rumour. At that moment he said candidly, he had not the slightest intention of asking the House to rescind the vote. The Government were at the time endeavouriug to complete the proposition which the hon. Member for Brighton had failed in completing. The House having committed itself to the clause, and—notwithstanding the warning they had received from the Government in calling upon them to reconsider it—having adopted it, and the hon. Member for Brighton having, as he (Mr. Disraeli) had said, failed to complete his proposition, Her Majesty's Government felt it their duty, if they could, to connect the two branches of the hon. Member's proposition—the principle that the election expenses should be transferred to the constituencies, and some proviso which would practically protect the constituencies from vexatious and improper contests. He confessed that he had himself indulged in a hope that such an arrangement was not impossible. That it was a very difficult one must be acknowledged by every hon. Member, considering the time which had been taken to solve the difficulty and the complete failure of the attempts ultimately. No proposition brought forward on the subject had attracted the sympathy or obtained the support of anything like a majority of that House; and even to-day they were asked to fall back upon a proposition which had never been put upon the Paper, which was hurriedly drawn up—stans pede in uno—and which had been re-
  1720
  jected by the House, because they preferred at the time another proposition which, after some deliberation, was in its turn rejected also. The Government certainly hoped even up to Tuesday evening that some proposition would be made by which the difficulty would be surmounted. But late on Tuesday night he was informed that it had been quite given up as hopeless that any proposition could be brought forward to which the House would assent. Under those circumstances the Government felt it their duty—he confessed, with great reluctance on his own part, as his Colleagues were aware—on Tuesday night to give the House another opportunity of reconsidering the clause, and the option of adopting some other proposition, rather than to send up to the other House at that advanced period of the year a piece of legislation upon this important subject, framed in a manner so crude and unsatisfactory, and which in itself might endanger the favourable conclusion of their labours. Well, every possible precaution was then taken to acquaint hon. Members generally with this intention on the part of the Government. The moment the Government arrived at the conclusion that such a course was absolutely necessary Notice was given to Gentlemen who possessed the confidence of hon. Members opposite, who thereupon became informed of the fact even before Gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House. Though the Government placed the Notice on the Paper for Wednesday, if anything like an intimation had then been given from those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite who influenced opinions upon such questions that further time was necessary the Government would not have insisted on coming to any definitive conclusion upon it on that day. The course of Public Business however relieved both sides of the House from any difficulty on that point, and the question at issue was not brought on until the following day. The House had, however, from Wednesday been employed more or less in discussing the question. Nearly the whole of the Morning Sitting yesterday had been employed in discussing it, but as it was not actually reached until late upon the Thursday the House had not the full opportunity of discussing it which the Government was so desirous of affording. Incidentally, however, they had been for some time previously discussing more or less the whole principle involved, and it must be admitted that notwithstanding all the time spen in

  1721
  considering the matter no satisfactory solution of the difficulty had been offered to the House. He made those remarks in order that the hon. Member for Brighton should not for a moment suppose that he had been treated by the Government with any want of fairness or courtesy. Her Majesty's Government were in a great difficulty at that advanced period of the Session, and they felt that even a delay of twenty-four hours was not a matter that ought to be lightly assented to. The House, he however submitted, had had sufficient notice, under the circumstances, for the, consideration of the question. They had considered it, and they had arrived at a decision which certainly facilitated the progress of the Bill. The time was valuable, and he thought the Bill was valuable. He entreated the House, therefore, not to embarrass the course of legislation on this subject by re-opening the question, particularly when the hon. Member for Brighton himself had no pretence for saying that he was coming forward with a satisfactory proposition. The hon. Gentleman had come forward yesterday morning with a proposition upon which the House decided, and could now only fall back upon the proposal of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Leeman), which the House had rejected. To press that proposition now would probably embark the House in a long and useless controversy, would waste the whole morning, and prevent them advancing to that point to which they all wished to arrive, and might endanger or embarrass the passage of a Bill which, through the good temper and forbearance of both sides of the House, had been brought to its last stage. He could assure the hon. Member with perfect sincerity that he laboured under a great mistake if he supposed that there was any disposition on the part of the Government to take an undue advantage of him, and he hoped that the hon. Gentleman would not persevere in pressing his Amendment on the House after the discussion and the result of yesterday.
  MR. LEEMANsaid, it was evident that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had benefited very largely by the education which he received yesterday from the Solicitor General. On the broad question of the principle of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett's) proposal the right hon. Gentleman had not said a single syllable, and yesterday the Solicitor General sheltered himself under a mere naked technicality. There had
  1722
  been no attempt on either his part or on that of the right hon. Gentleman to meet the arguments of the hon. Member for Brighton. The House had twice decided the broad question of the principle of the hon. Member for Brighton's clause, and the only grounds put forward for asking the House to reverse its decision were the technical difficulties urged ad nauseam by the Solicitor General. He asked the House not to be led away by those pretended difficulties—he used the word advisedly—of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman had just told them that yesterday the hon. Member for York made a proposition without Notice. Now, he did not think that statement was characterized by the right hon. Gentleman's usual candour. Necessarily he had brought forward his proposition without Notice because it was an Amendment on an amended Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman had further stated that his proposition was rejected by the House almost unanimously. He, took issue with the right hon. Gentleman. Several hon. Members on the right hon. Gentleman's own side of the House had since told him they would have voted for his proposition if he had gone to a division. In withdrawing it he yielded to appeals made to him from the front Bench. The House would remember that when yesterday his noble Friend the Member for the West Riding (Viscount Milton) moved his Amendment, which was subsequently adopted without a division, the Solicitor General thought fit to use language which was anything but respectful to the noble Viscount, and anything but what was due from a Law Officer of the Crown to a Member of that House. The hon. and learned Gentleman told the House that the noble Viscount's clause would not work, but he did not condescend to say why. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), with that acuteness which belonged to him, and with the aid of his great experience at Quarter Sessions, told the House that the clause was perfectly workable; and the fact that the Government accepted it subsequently was evidence that the right hon. Gentleman was right, and the hon. and learned Gentleman wrong. There was no difficulty in reducing to practice the principle for which the hon. Member for Brighton contended; and he entreated the House not to be deluded by the statement of the Solicitor General that there was a technical difficulty. He trusted the House would

  1723
  bring itself back to the position in which it stood on Saturday, and if they saw that the proposition of Mr. Fawcett was a just and sound one, that they would adopt it.
  MR. FLOYERsaid, that, as he understood it, the question was this—How could a county rate be levied on the different divisions of a county which had been divided for election purposes? He should not for a moment dispute the authority of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley). True, there would be no great difficulty in levying a rate in one of several districts of a county; but you must not only levy the rate and receive your money, but you must know how to spend it for the parties who had paid it. Now, Somersetshire had been divided into three divisions for election purposes; and, taking it as an illustration, he asked what would happen if there was 'an election in one division and not in the two others, supposing the clause of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett), to be added to the Bill? It was well known that county rate was levied by fixing on some aliquot portion of 1d. or some other sum. Assuming that the lowest rate—¼d. in the pound—was levied on one division for election purposes, and that £1,000 was raised thereby, while the expenses of the election amounted to only £700 or £800, in what way was the balance to be expended? If it was paid over to the county rate, then one part of the county would be paying for the whole county, and would be thereby so far relieving the two other portions of the county of some of what they ought to pay. On the other hand, it might be said that you could credit the balance after payment of the election expenses to the portion of the county in which the money had been raised; but in what way could that balance be applied?—because for all other than election purposes the county was a whole, and the entire of the expenses of the county must be paid by rates levied at so much in the pound. It might be proposed that the money should be locked up and kept for some future election; but elections were not of such frequent occurrence in counties that any such proceeding would be satisfactory to the ratepayers. The hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Leeman) said this was a question of principle. He (Mr. Floyer) contended that it was a question of practical arrangement. Again, it had been said that the principle of the clause was one of economy. If so, it was the economy of looking
  1724
  to your neighbour to pay instead of paying yourself. Until the incidence of local taxation could be settled in a more satisfactory manner the ratepayers of the counties and boroughs, who were already very heavily taxed, would look very jealously on any such proposition as that now under consideration.
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, it was not the practice for county authorities to levy a uniform rate of so much in the pound on the different parishes. The practice was to call for so much from each of them in a lump sum. Each union in a county was called upon to contribute its quota, according to its rateable value. At the present time certain rates were levied by union districts, and nothing would be more easy than to levy the sum necessary for defraying election expenses by a rate upon those unions which were included in the district for which the election was held. He thought this proposal would entirely get rid of the, technical difficulty raised by the Solicitor General. Neither was there any necessity for levying an amount in excess of what would be actually required. The exact sum could be as easily levied.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he must represent that the narrative which the First Lord of the Treasury had given of the circumstances connected with this proviso was, no doubt unintentionally, not quite accurate. The object of the clause, as originally introduced by the hon. Member for Brighton, was to throw the expenses attendant on the machinery of elections upon the ratepayers for whose benefit it was assumed that Members of Parliament existed, and so help to get rid of that clement of vulgar display which had always been so corrupting an clement in elections, and which threatened to be hereafter still more rampant. At the same time it contained a provision to protect the constituencies from the contingent risk of their being infested by the pest of sham candidates advertising themselves at the hustings. The clause was well considered and fully sifted, and finally read a second time in its complete form by a not inconsiderable majority, remembering the number of Members up in town. At this stage questions were raised as to the details of the saving provision, some of them in a friendly spirit, by Members who approved of the principle, but who were doubtful as to the particular machinery. His hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, although in possession of the field, in the most good-humoured spirit

  1725
  waived his advantage, and consented to leave the form of the proviso open to further discussion by withdrawing the second paragraph of the clause which embodied his own scheme. That concession reduced the clause to the naked condition of an enactment that the expenses of the hustings, polling booths, and so forth were to be thrown upon the rates. But he (Mr. Beresford Hope) appealed to the recollection of the House if an honourable understanding had not been arrived at that if the clause, which had been read a second time in complete proportions, should pass in its naked form, it was hereafter to be clothed upon, if possible, the Report. In short, if it were allowed to pass, it was to do so de bene esse, and without prejudice, will the understanding that some limiting provision was to be appended when it came up upon the Report. Accordingly, on the second division, it was again affirmed, and by a majority only diminished by a single vote. The honourable understanding regulated the votes, and the principle of the clause was affirmed under the idea—shared by friends and by opponents—that a proviso would be added to it before it came on for the final trial of the Report, which might act as a safeguard against the constituencies being put to any unnecessary expense by vexations or illusory candidatures. How did Her Majesty's Government use the opportunity? Standing, as he was doing, in the somewhat invidious position of separating himself on this question from the party with which he usually acted, he would refrain from reflections on them; but he must say that he thought the Government would have taken not only the more straightforward but the more politic course if it had—also without prejudice—while not flinching from its opposition to the clause at the proper time, yet co-operated in bringing it into the most perfect, and, from its own point of view, least objectionable form, by aiding in framing as workable a proviso as possible. The Government might, with perfect honour, have done so, and yet reserved its final vote against the clause in its entirety, just as no Member is precluded by his aid, contributed in Committee, from voting against the Third Reading of any Bill. It was an insult to their common sense to pretend that the Government could not, if it had pleased, have found something which would hold water. But, instead of taking the generous course, what did it do? It adopted the strategic
  1726
  policy of beating the supporters of the clause in detail by setting up the Solicitor General to oppose everybody's plan and propose none of his own. Every suggestion from every quarter which had been made upon the preceding day met with the derision of the Treasury Bench. That of the noble Lord the Member for the West Riding fared no better until there uprose the Nestor of the Conservative party, his right hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire, to show, with his characteristic broad sense and long experience, that it was very reasonable and perfectly easy to be worked, and the Government had to swallow it. Then came the division, and it was not surprising that the Government by its tactics should have snatched a majority. He was not ashamed to confess that it was a question with himself—as he felt sure it was with the other Members on that side who supported the hon. Member for Brighton—whether he would vote for the clause in its naked form, stripped as it was of the safeguards afforded by the proviso. But he reflected that it was not the fault of the hon. Member for Brighton, nor of himself, that the House was placed in that false position, but of the Government. The principle which they desired to affirm was this, and it was the office of the Government to see that, if carried, it should be put into working order, while if the office were forced upon the Treasury Bench, there was another place, and further opportunities, in which to do its duty. Accordingly, he voted without misgiving with his hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, as he now intended to do again. He would now, before he concluded, briefly state the general principle on which he had all through the debates upon this Bill supported not only the present proposition, but all others having for their object to simplify and to cheapen the process of elections. He found himself face to face with the enormous addition to the constituencies created by the Reform Act. This increase was in the main made up out of the least educated and most impressionable classes of the community. These were the persons who were not only the most accessible to direct monetary influence, but to the juggling cajolery of noise, and pomp, and bluster, and stage play, of which demagogues, and the wholesale buyers of constituencies, would well know how to make full use, but of which the intellectual and conscientious candidate would be ashamed to avail himself. This system of histrionic electioneer-

  1727
  ing had attained its climax in America, and some amusingly flagrant instances of its abuse during the pending contest for the Presidency had got in the English papers. With the increase of voting numbers in the country the increase of the same bad; system might be apprehended, unless a check were put to it by a series of enactments providing, as far as laws can do, for a reasonable degree of electoral purity, such as the prohibition of committee-rooms being held in public-houses, and for the encouragement of cheapness and simplicity in the machinery of contests. If the cost of hustings and of polling-places were left, as heretofore, to the candidates, there would be most salient danger of jobbery; on one side and of corruption on the other, which might best be met by the simple process of making the constituencies themselves feel an interest in the economy of their production. In fact, dispassionately viewed, cheapness of elections would in the time to come be as truly a Conservative safeguard as it would be a really Liberal policy. As a political question, cheap and decent elections would be the best guarantee against the House being flooded by a combination of demagogues and of plutocrats, while from the social side the more simple and the more business-like elections were made, the better would it be for general morality.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope) had with great ability and with some considerable success placed the question upon a false issue. The provision respecting the counties was of trifling importance, and applied only to those counties which were divided into districts for election purposes. The main question before the House was, whether or not the Bill was to be re-committed. The hon. Member for Cambridge had not quite accurately stated what had occurred. In a very thin Committee, not comprising one quarter of the Members of the House, the clause of the hon. Member for Brighton was introduced with a proviso or rider to make provision for deposits at the time of the nomination, or, as the clause originally stood, before the nomination. It was speedily seen that that proviso was not a good one, and the hon. Member himself undertook to bring up another proviso upon the Report. It was perfectly true that the clause was agreed to on two divisions, but it was carried by narrow majorities, and it was the constitutional practice for the House
  1728
  on the Report to review what had been done in Committee. On Tuesday, Notice was given on the part of the Government of their intention to strike out the clause; but, considering that on Wednesday there were several divisions in the course of the discussion on the Bill, and on Thursday two more divisions before this particular clause was reached, the Notice relative to it could not be considered very short; for any one observing what was on the Paper of Business for Wednesday must have been very sanguine if he thought that the clause had the least chance of being considered on that day. What happened on Thursday? On that day the House, upon the proposition of the proviso of the hon. Member for Brighton—which proviso the hon. Member deemed the necessary adjunct of his clause—was occupied for a long time in discussing what sort of proviso should be framed, and there were hardly two Members agreed on what ought to be done, how it should be done, or, when done, who should be made to pay for it; and the natural result of the prevailing confusion was that no proviso was agreed to. The Amendment of the noble Viscount (Viscount Milton) merely declaring how the cost should fall on counties which were divided, had nothing to do with the general principle of the hon. Member for Brighton's clause. It was now proposed to re-commit the Bill, but if that course were adopted the whole of the previous proceedings might be repeated, the clause being again inserted in Committee, and again struck out on the Report. That would not be a very convenient process to go through at the end of July. The clause having been struck out in a House of 200, and by a larger majority than that by which it had been carried in Committee, the wisest course would be to adhere to the last decision. Nothing had been done but what was quite regular and in conformity with the Orders of the House, adopted to prevent anything being carried into effect of which the House might not be generally aware. He was not fond of the Bill, and he should not care if it were lost altogether; but he could not understand why the parties who were anxious for its passing should now be contending for a matter which had no connection with corrupt practices at all. For himself he did not see why those expenses should be thrown on the poor ratepayers—a course of proceeding that he did not think he should describe wrongly if he said it was dirty.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, if he understood the First Minister of the Crown aright ho rather regretted that the proposition of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) was not carried with a proper proviso, and, as the Liberal party were anxious that it should not be lost, he believed that throe or four Gentlemen, if they were earnest in the matter, could in three or four minutes prepare a perfect clause. He would remind the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) that on one division the proposal was carried in Committee by a majority of 84 to 74. He did not think that a thin House.
  MR. READsaid, he was anxious to reduce the costs of Parliamentary Elections, but he objected to do it at the expense of the ratepayers. If it were possible to levy a fair rate for the boroughs it would be very difficult to make it with any amount of justice on the counties. One-half of the freeholders of his division of the county lived in Parliamentary boroughs in the city of Norwich or out of the county, and besides that one-half of the ratepayers were not voters, and the result would be that in his county the great bulk of the expense would fall on the non-electors and farmers of the county.
  MR. J. STUART MILL: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down seems to think that unexpensiveness and purity of election is a matter which affects the electors only, and that the non-electors have no interest in the matter—a view in which I confess I do not share. I do not propose to revive the question of how far the Government has treated us fairly in regard to this matter. We must accept the statement of the First Minister of the Crown that at the time when he replied to the question of the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) the Government had no intention of opposing this clause. But when the right hon. Gentleman proceeds to give a history—the correctness of which is countersigned by the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley)—of what has passed, and says that the House have rejected as ineffectual all propositions to reconcile the scheme of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) with the desirableness of giving security against vexatious contests, I cannot assent to the correctness of his statement. There was not one of the proposals made which would not, in the opinion of the supporters of the clause, have proved perfectly effectual. The objections did not
  1730
  turn on the efficacy of the proposals, but on which of them was most likely to pass the House. They were overthrown by the action of the Government, but the right hon. Gentleman has not shown that there would be any difficulty in working them. The course pursued fully illustrates the old proverb "None so deaf as those who won't hear." Does anyone think that if the right hon. Gentleman applied his mind to the subject every difficulty would not quickly vanish? We have an apt illustration of the mountain-like magnitude that molehill objections may assume, in the argument of one hon. Gentleman—that if a little more money than enough is taken from the county rate for the purpose of paying election expenses it will be impossible to know what to do with the balance. We have heard of lions in the path, but difficulties such as these are snails or earwigs in the path, and not lions. Were the Government aware of the feeling of satisfaction that went through the country along with the news that the clause of the hon. Member for Brighton was carried, they would, I think, instead of throwing technical difficulties in the way of its adoption, rather bring it in in the form of a separate Bill than lose the chance of its passing. I hope, therefore, that the Motion to re-commit the Bill will be carried.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he was quite ready for a division, and if the House were of that opinion his object would be answered. He would remind the House that there was not even a Notice of a clause on the Paper to be introduced into the Bill if the Bill was re-committed. With the various Amendments that had been proposed and the discussion that had taken place upon them, what chance was there of their agreeing to a clause?
  MR. CORRANCEsaid: As one of the county Members on this side of the House, who upon a former occasion expressed opinions not in accordance with the views of those among whom we sit, perhaps I may ask the indulgence of the House for a few moments, which may suffice to explain myself upon certain points. Of this whole Bill let me first say this, that it seems to me to possess a value beyond that of the mere penalties inflicted for an offence—beyond that even of a measure having a deterrent effect. Sir, it expresses a moral sentiment which upon the country will not be lost, and which will strengthen the hands of Parliament to govern this country. Modern Governments must rest upon re-

  1731
  spect. Now, Sir, my approval of this clause, as a general principle, is also based upon this—it will add to the confidence of the country in those who are sent here, in certain respects. My reasons for this I have already set forth, and with these I will not now trouble the House at further length. But, Sir, what is said? That ratepayers will object. Now, Sir, one word as to this. By those who say so, it seems to be assumed that the ratepayer is a thing—a troglodyte, if you will—of a special class, sui generis, and uniform in his habits and thoughts. Is this so? In truth, I think not. Sir, the ratepayer is a creature of very various habits, ways, and thoughts, if I may say so without offence, after the many remarkable descriptions of him we have heard, not wholly dissimilar from even Members of this House. You cannot correctly predicate of him that he is simply and unreservedly opposed to rates. And yet this is what is said in his behalf. Now, Sir, let me qualify this, and admit that he is opposed to payment of rates unless he can see some major advantage accruing to himself. Well, it may even be so in this case; especially among the more acute. Sir, I object to an increase of rates, on the plain ground that they are unjust, and perhaps it is for this very reason that I do not object to this. How and where and by whom is the battle to be fought? By the representation of ratepayers sent up to this House. If you give the ratepayer a direct interest in the matter, will his battle be worse fought? It is time that this was understood: protected interests make a poor fight. Sir, those who think that this question of the rates can be won by mere words or out-door agitation make a great mistake, and they miscalculate their means towards the end they would promote. The Market Bill and the malt tax, far minor points, might have made them wiser than this. Omelettes like this are not j made without breaking eggs; and we do but clip the shell in this case. It is time that ratepayers should understand this. But, Sir, undoubtedly there are ratepayers of an unintelligent class, not conversant with these public affairs or their own interest in such a case; and to them, for a brief moment, you may make your appeal with success. But remember, Sir, this—that behind, or rather before, such men, we have now organized bodies of intelligent men of the middle class to whom we can appeal, and who will see their interest in
  1732
  this measure, and public opinion will follow their opinion in such a case; and that opinion will endorse the expediency of this. That, Sir, is the principle which I on Saturday expressed by my vote. But, Sir, when we thus sanction a general principle we have another duty to perform, and it is in this instance a very important duty—to protect the ratepayer from the misuse of the public purse. We must have a proviso sufficiently large to do this. It did not seem to me that any proposition yesterday sufficiently met the case, and upon that ground I gave my vote. We must have a money deposit of a substantial class. Now, Sir, what has been said against this by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie)? That it is unconstitutional to fine an Englishman who wants to make a speech. Sir, I wish it was unconstitutional to talk nonsense, and that we could clap a fine upon it—yes, even in this House. I do not allude to the right hon. Member when I say this; but I do say that I would even double such a fine if I could. Now, Sir, in the proviso now proposed I do think we have such a guarantee of a substantial class; and that, coupled with it, the clause deserves our support. What other objection to this—that it will not work? The Solicitor General moved its rejection; but he assigned no reason for this, or, if he did, one of this class—I think I have heard such from counsel when a particularly stupid jury was addressed—"Gentlemen, you are so intelligent I needn't enlighten you; so well informed that I won't venture to instruct you; and of course you have made up your mind upon the point." But suppose, Sir, he helps us a little as to this, and deals with the difficulty—not so very great—of an enactment for a separate rate. Sir, I at least believe that he will confer a great boon on that ratepaying class; and they will gladly erect in their market-places, not perhaps a statue, but that hustings upon which he will be triumphantly returned to the House without charge to him or expense.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 102; Noes 91: Majority 11.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

REGULATION OF RAILWAYS BILL. [BILL 142.]

  [Lords.] COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 13 (Liability of Company during Sea Transit).
  MR. DIXON MR. DIXON moved to omit the clause. Its object was to relieve the railway companies from the sea risk which they at present incurred by booking and conveying parcels over a route a portion of which was by sea. He contended that it was undesirable to relieve these companies from a responsibility for which they were to a great extent compensated by the magnitude of the transactions which they undertook.
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEthought it unjust that the railway companies should be subjected to a risk to which ordinary shipowners were not liable. Steamship companies, which are sometimes competitors with railways, were protected by their bills of lading, and the wording of this clause was really taken from one of those bills of lading. The clause was simply to leave an absolute freedom of contract between all parties. Everyone must admit the great advantage to the public of through booking. The railway companies said they could not continue this, if they were to be subject to greater liability than shipowners, during the transit in vessels over which they had frequently no control. For the public convenience, and more particularly in the case of the conveyance of cattle from Ireland to this country, it was desirable that this clause should be passed, especially as it would by no means exempt the railway companies from any responsibility they might incur through negligence.
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, he thought it unjust that the railway companies should incur this risk without receiving any compensation in the way of increased rates. For the public convenience, however, it was, he thought, unadvisable that this clause should be adopted, inasmuch as the real remedy, in his opinion, lay in an increased charge upon the parcels.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he believed that this was just one of those cases where the railway company could insure and no one else could. As the clause stood it would practically bar insurance.
  MR. GILPINsaid, that the system of insurance hitherto in vogue had not been profitable to the railway companies, and that it was easy for merchants and others to have a running policy if they chose.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 14 to 16, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 17 (Communication between Passengers and the Company's Servants).
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he objected to limiting the provisions enforcing means of communication between passengers and guards to trains running longer distances than twenty miles.
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, that though a great number of inventions for securing a communication between the passengers and the guard had been submitted to the Board of Trade, he did not believe that any plan yet tried had been found altogether satisfactory. Neither the system at work on the Continent nor that which had been tried at home was quite perfect. That very day a letter had been received from the Commissioner of Railways in Ohio, giving a description of a communication by the simple method of a cord which seemed to work well even round the sharp curves of American railways. Under these circumstances he thought it would not be well to force the companies to a large expenditure without giving some time for further trial; but as to the exact date that ought to be inserted in the clause, he was in the hands of the Committee.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that on the Continent, when the communication was made by a passenger, the guard went to the carriage from which it had proceeded. The construction of the permanent way on the lines in this country did not permit of that being done on our railways; and as any plan yet tried in England consisted of a single signal, the guard could not know what was meant unless he stopped the train. To do that would in many cases be attended with the greatest danger to the lives of the whole of the passengers.
  MR. H. B. SHERIDANsaid, that the principle of having a communication between passengers and guard had already been approved by that House. A means of such communication had been supplied in the express trains of the South-Eastern Railway for a very considerable time, and he believed that no passenger had been found mischievous enough to make use of it for any idle purpose.
  The word "April "substituted for "January."
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  On Motion of Mr. STEPHEN CAVE, the following new clauses were agreed to and added to the Bill:—
  After Clause 19—"V. Light Railways.—(Order for construction and working of Railway as a light Railway); (Conditions and regulations for light Railway); (Publication of regulations)."
  Before Clause 23—"(Printed copies of shareholders address book); (Extension of scope of 'Railway Companies Powers Act, 1864,' 27 and 28 Vic. c. 20).'"
  After Clause 28—"(Extension of time)."
  MR. BAZLEY MR. BAZLEY moved, after Clause 12 to insert the following clauses:—
  "II. Management.—Company may appoint or authorize appointment of executive committee; Power to separate the capital and revenue management; Capital expenditure to be voted at general meetings; Company in general meeting may remove directors; Preference holders on certain questions to have a right to vote; Questions may be decided by voting papers; Report of question and voting papers to be sent to shareholders; Secretary to receive proxies and voting papers."
  MR. STEPHEN CAVE, while admitting the advantage of the objects aimed at by the hon. Member, objected to these clauses, some of which would effect a revolution in railway administration. Many of them no doubt were useful, and be had given, under the clause extending the Railway Companies Powers Act, increased facility for adopting them. Of others he might say with all respect that they were suggested during the railway panic, and would over-ride Acts of Parliament under which the railways had been constructed. They went, in his opinion, much too far to admit of their being accepted.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that it should be recollected that directors had the power to carry out the provisions of those clauses without any Act of Parliament.
  Clauses negatived seriatim.
  MR. H. B. SHERIDAN MR. H. B. SHERIDAN moved in Part III., after Clause 17, to insert the following clause:—
  (Smoking compartments for all classes.)
  "And all Railway Companies shall, from and after the passing of this Act, in every passenger train, provide smoking compartments for each class of passengers."
  MR. LEEMANsaid, that some trains had so few carriages that two sets could not be provided.
  MR. W. B. BEAUMONTsaid, he was chairman of a company whose trains sometimes consisted only of one compartment.
  MR. J. STUART MILLsuggested that the provision should be made to apply only to trains of a certain length. The abuse of smoking had become so great, and the violation of the companies' by-laws so frequent, that the smoking in trains had become a positive nuisance. Scarcely a railway carriage could be entered in which smoking was not going on, or which was not tainted with stale tobacco.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he was in i favour of smoking compartments. Journeying on the Charing Cross and Cannon Street line the other day he found a youth in one of the carriages with a great deal more hair on his face than brains in his head smoking vigorously; a lady was in the carriage, and presuming she objected to the smoking, he asked her to go into another compartment with him. He conducted the lady to another compartment and returned to the contest with the young man. But smokers always had their own way.
  MR. LAINGsaid, he thought the matter had better be left to supply and demand; several railway companies had already provided smoking carriages, because they found it was to their interest to do so.
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEsympathized with the supporters of the clause. As a non-smoker he had often suffered severely from the violation of the by-laws against smoking; but, while admitting that railway companies had been rather slow to respond to the wants of travellers in this respect, he thought it better to leave the question to be settled by public opinion.
  MR. J. STUART MILLsaid, public opinion in this instance was swayed by a majority of smokers. It was a case of oppression by a majority of a minority.
  COLONEL W. STUARTsaid, he would support the clause. Anyone, no matter under what circumstances, asking a smoker to desist was generally abused like a pickpocket.
  MR. H. B. SHERIDANsaid, he would propose to withdraw the clause and bring up an amended one at the next stage of the Bill to meet the objection raised.
  Clause withdrawn.
  MR. KENDALL MR. KENDALL moved a new clause—Carriages to be provided exclusively for women.
  Clause negatived.
  MR. LEEMANsaid, he had a series of clauses to propose, but as it was now so

  1737
  near the hour at which the Sitting must be suspended, he would bring them up on the Report.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENproposed the following clause:—
  (Railway Companies to be liable to penalties in case they shall provide Trains for Prize fights.)
  "Any Railway Company that shall knowingly hire or otherwise provide any Special Train for the purpose of conveying parties to or to be present at any Prize fight, or who shall stop any Ordinary Train to convenience or accommodate any parties attending a Prize fight, at any place not an ordinary station on their line, shall be liable to a penalty, to be recovered in a summary way before two Justices of the county in which such Prize fight shall be held or shall be attempted to be held, of such sum, not exceeding £500 and not less than £200, as such Justices shall determine, one-half of such penalty to be paid to the party at whose suit the summons shall be issued, and the other half to be paid to the Treasurer of the county in which such Prize fight shall be held or shall be attempted to be held, in aid of the county rate; and service of the summons under which the penalty is sought to be enforced on the Secretary of the Company, at his office ten days before the day of hearing, shall be suficient to give the Justices before whom the case shall come jurisdiction to hear and determine the case."
  MR. CLAYsaid, he thought there was a considerable amount of false philanthropy in this matter. If time permitted, he had a great deal to say against this clause. A prize fight might be a very disgusting exhibition, and those who thought it was were not obliged to go to it. He did not go to prize fights; but he was of opinion that when we got rid of prize fighting the knife would appear.
  Clause agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
MR. JACOB BRIGHTsaid, he rose to move that the House at its rising should adjourn till Monday. It was a hard thing that hon. Members who had spent their days and nights in the House for the last week should have to come down again on Saturday.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYrose to Order. He believed that the Motion for Adjournment must be put before a Motion for fixing the adjournment to a particular day.
MR. SPEAKERwas understood to say that the hon. Member for Manchester was in Order, though the course mentioned by
1738
the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hardy) was the one usually pursued.
MR. JACOB BRIGHTsaid, that there was occasions when a Saturday Sitting was perfectly legitimate; but they were not in that position now, and he therefore objected to their having to assemble tomorrow.
MR. MILNER GIBSONseconded the Motion.
MR. DISRAELI: I regret that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Jacob Bright) should have found it necessary to commence the Business of this evening by such a Motion. There is no necessity for anticipating when the adjournment will occur. That depends on the progress which will be made this evening. The House may make a compensatory progress—one which will compensate for what occurred last night. But for what happened then—owing to too strict interpretation of the rules of the House—there would probably have been no necessity for anticipating a meeting tomorrow. Such a necessity may even now be prevented if the House is in the cue for making progress to night; but if not, then so far as the Government can influence the decision of the House, we shall certainly do everything to expedite the progress of the Bill that is now to be considered. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not ask the House to come yet to a decision with regard to the adjournment, because later in the evening we shall be able to form a better conclusion as to the course we ought to take. The hon. Gentleman has not been long in the House; but so far as I have observed, he has never taken any step that did not entitle him to the respect and consideration of the House. But I observe that the Motion has been seconded by a right hon. Gentleman who has great experience of the House, and I am surprised that a Gentleman, once a Minister of the Crown, knowing, as he must, how important is the discreet management of the time of the House with a view to the proper conduct of Public Business, should have advised the hon. Gentleman to take a course which I certainly do not think will recommend itself to the general opinion of the House.
MR. MILNER GIBSON: If the right hon. Gentleman had not referred to me, I should not have thought it necessary to remark that it is in consequence of hon. Gentlemen opposite who are interested in the Bill, not thinking it worth while to come here last evening to make a

1739
House that we are called upon to take the exceptional course we have taken in view of a probable Sitting on Saturday. Now, Sir, I contend that it is not the business of the Opposition to make the House. I contend that it is not fair to call upon Members of this House to address the House, and to propose Motions and important Amendments upon a Bill before the House, in the absence of a great proportion of hon. Members who could have been here, and who were absent. It is not fair to call upon them to address their arguments to some six or eight or ten Members. It may be very well for Gentlemen to dine, and enjoy themselves, and come down here at ten or eleven o'clock to interrupt Business. There was nobody here. There are a sufficient number of officials of the Government to make a House. ["No!"] Well, very nearly. And then where were the farmers' friends last night? There were no supporters of this extraordinary Bill here. We, who are opposed to the Bill, were not bound to come down in violent haste. However that is not now the question before the House. Now I will take leave to say that when a change was made in the Standing Orders of this House, by which hon. Members were deprived of the opportunity which they had enjoyed for years of bringing forward Motions upon the Adjournment on Friday, it was agreed that another opportunity should be substituted for it. I remember that when Lord Palmerston proposed the change, he said he would always put Supply on a Friday, and hon. Members should have the same opportunity of bringing forward their Motions and making statements upon a Motion to go into Supply as they formerly had upon a Motion for the Adjournment of the House from Friday until Monday. A Resolution was passed that during the time Supply was open and Committee of Supply could be moved, it should be moved always on a Friday; and that the House without a special Motion should, as a matter of course, stand adjourned from Friday until Monday; and I remember that Lord Palmerston said in that way hon. Members would have the opportunity of making Motions which they would otherwise have had, if the change had not been made; and that the Government, in case the propositions on Committee of Supply did not occupy the whole evening, should have the opportunity of moving some Vote in Supply. But now Supply is closed, and therefore I contend that the pledge cannot be
1740
kept with the House unless the Motion that the House at its rising be adjourned till Monday is made at the commencement of Business. In the hon. Clerk's (Sir Erskine May's) Work on Parliamentary Practice, it is stated that, inasmuch as it is not an ordinary thing to sit on Saturday, it is necessary that there should be a special Motion that the House at its rising on Friday should adjourn till Saturday, if it be so intended. The old Motion to adjourn till Monday was intended to avoid the possibility of an unnecessary meeting on Saturday, and when the House intends to sit on Saturday it is the invariable practice that there should be a special Motion for that purpose. Now, Sir, I object to sit on Saturday, and I therefore support the Motion of the hon. Member for Manchester. Private Members with Motions expect to bring them on on the Motion for Adjournment. I contend that there is a pledge to this House that they should have a right to bring forward these Motions. Lord Palmerston stated that this House was the mouthpiece of the nation, and that he would not deprive the Members of this House of this right of expressing their opinions. Last Friday the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) made this Motion, and there was no objection then—and the Member for Manchester (Mr. Jacob Bright) has made this Motion on the grounds, first, that he objects to sit on Saturday, and, next, that he is unwilling that Members should lose the opportunity of a right which had been given them by a distinct pledge. I should be glad to know from some Member of the Government whether what I have stated is not correct. I know of no one since I have had a seat in this House who has shown a more earnest desire to preserve the privileges of independent Members of this House than the right hon. Gentleman now at the head of the Government. He has always raised his voice to preserve them, and he ought to do so now. I repeat it is not fair to ask the House to sit on Saturday because there was no House last night. That was the fault of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Only two Members of the Protectionist party were present last night, (the hon. Member for East Norfolk and the hon. Member for South Essex). Why were the rest not here? If the supporters of the Government had made a House they could have saved hon. Members the inconvenience of sitting on the Saturday. I have been informed by several

1741
hon. Members, Friends of this Bill, that they are very much averse to sitting tomorrow. To myself it would be most inconvenient. I am, of course, ready to sacrifice my own personal convenience; but I am not willing to see the privileges of independent Members violated, nor am I disposed to support the unusual course of meeting on Saturday when no sufficient ground exists for such a proceeding. I shall certainly support the course taken by my hon. Friend.
MR. GATHORNE HARDY: The: honesty and candour of the right hon. Gentleman are so well known in this House, and also the manner in which he has conducted the opposition to a Bill be fore the House, that of course everyone will appreciate the language he has now used. If the right hon. Gentleman, with the candour and honesty which are so conspicuous in him, will rise in his place and say it is for the sake of independent Members he has made the speech he has just addressed to us, and if he will tell us it has nothing to do with that factious opposition to the Bill—
MR. MILNER GIBSON: I deny that any Minister of the Crown has the right to say that any Member is offering a "factious opposition." I ask that the words be taken down. [Cries of "Order" and "Chair," provoked by the right hon. Gentleman rising several times after he had resumed his seat.]
MR. SPEAKER: I must ask the House, at the commencement of its sitting, to conduct itself with more moderation. The Motion which has been made is not an unusual one; on the contrary, it is a perfectly regular and justifiable Motion. The Standing Order is as follows:—
"That while the Committees of Supply and Ways and Menus are open, the House, when it meets on Friday, shall, at its rising, stand adjourned until the following Monday, without any question being put, unless the House shall otherwise resolve."
This implies that the regular rule of the House during the continuance of Supply is that there should be an adjournment from Friday to Monday; but when Supply is over independent Members are provided with an opportunity to make Motions at the meeting of the House on Friday, on the Motion for Adjournment. Accordingly, last Friday the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) moved that the House, at its rising, adjourn to Monday, and questions were raised upon the Motion.
1742
If, for the general convenience of the House, hon. Members choose to give way, they may do so; but I must certainly remind the House that the very strong expression of opinion that the course pursued by the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Jacob Bright) was an irregular course is not justified. He is acting quite in accordance with the Orders regulating the Business of the House.
MR. GATHORNE HARDY: I am not aware, Sir, that I took any exception to the Motion.
MR. MILNER GIBSONrose to the point of Order, and amid loud cries of "Chair."
MR. SPEAKER: Under the circumstances of the case I certainly think that the expression of the right hon. Gentleman was too strong a one.
MR. GATHORNE HARDY: I at once bow, Sir, to the decision you have given on that point, and I am quite willing to say I am very sorry I used any expression supposed to be irregular. I took no exception to the Motion for Adjournment from this day to Monday; but I beg to say it is not required, because this House would stand adjourned to Monday by the Order which you, Sir, have read, if no Motion was made.
MR. MILNER GIBSON: No; only during Committee of Supply.
MR. SPEAKER: Supply being at an end, that no longer avails, and the Motion for Adjournment is required.
MR. GATHORNE HARDY: I was remarking that if the right hon. Gentleman opposite would say he supported the Motion for the sake of independent Members—[Mr. MILNER GIBSON: I did say so.]—The right hon. Gentleman did not say he did it for the sake of independent Members, but he said they had Motions upon the Paper which they would be able to bring forward on the Motion for the Adjournment. But a noble Friend of mine opposite (Lord Elcho), whose name stands first on the Paper, is not here to bring on his Motion—I presume on the supposition that there would be no such Motion for Adjournment. It is notorious that at the end of a Session, when the right hon. Gentleman has been a Member of the Government, as well as while the present Government has been in Office, sittings have been held on a Saturday when Public Business required them; and it is notorious that there is now Public Business which may necessitate a Saturday Sitting. If this

1743
night be given up to comparatively unimportant subjects, then it may be necessary to sit to-morrow; but if the House proceeds with pressing Business the occasion may not arise. It was for that reason I said the right hon. Gentleman was not acting in the interests of independent Members.
MAJOR PARKER: When an ex-Minister resorts to the contemptible course—["Order!"]
MR. SPEAKER: I have already pointed out to the House that the course taken is not out of Order.
MAJOR PARKER: I beg to apologize. When an ex-Minister resorts to the dubious and unjustifiable course of trying to damage a humble Member for the agricultural interest who endeavours, as far as lies in his power, faithfully and honestly to discharge his duty, by pointing out two hon. Members below the Gangway, and saying that they were the only Members for the agricultural interest that were present, I venture to say he is guilty of a most unjustifiable remark.
MR. BLAKEsaid, he was one of those who had a Notice on the Paper to be discussed on the Motion for Adjournment, and for whom the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) had so much consideration. But as he considered that the Cattle Market Bill was of much greater importance than his Motion, he had great pleasure in withdrawing it for the sake of securing progress to a measure in which the interests of his own country, as well as England, were concerned.
SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, he had a Motion on the Paper which he had not put down for the purpose of obstructing the Cattle Market Bill. He had had it down several times and had withdrawn it for the sake of Public Business; and he had put it down for this evening in anticipation of the Motion for Adjournment, and in the expectation that private Members would be able to avail themselves of their privileges. As regarded the Motion of which Notice had been given by a noble Lord who was not present (Lord Elcho), he had received a letter from the noble Lord, who said he had been obliged to go to Scotland, and, if he had not, he feared that had he brought on his Motion, he would have been counted out. Seeing the present excited state of the bucolic mind of the House, he should certainly withdraw the Motion of which he had given Notice.

BRISTOL ELECTION.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. NEATEsaid, he could not forego the present opportunity of calling the attention of the Government and the House to the Report from the Select Committee on the Bristol Election Petition, because he had given way on two previous occasions; and if he consented to do so now, another opportunity might not be afforded him. He considered the purity of the British elector far more important than that of British cattle. He could not help thinking that Her Majesty's Government were very little inclined to adopt serious measures for the repression of bribery and corruption, notwithstanding the pretentious pressing forward of the Bill which had been passed, otherwise they would have advised the Crown to issue a Commission. He quite admitted the purity of the Committee that tried the Petition, but he admired their simplicity more than their purity. The Committee had reported that it did not appear to them that, considering the large constituency Bristol possessed, bribery extensively prevailed. Any one who read the evidence, and was made acquainted with the position of some of the persons who took part in that bribery, would probably come to a very different conclusion. He thought if they had had regard, not only to the cases that were actually proved, but to those witnesses who had stayed away under suspicious circumstances, their Report would have been of a more decided character. It appeared to him to be the desire of all parties that just sufficient bribery should be proved to unseat the Member, and that all the rest should be hushed up. He wished to know whether the Attorney General had read the evidence, and, if so, whether it was his intention to prosecute the bribers, two at least of whom had also been guilty of subornation of perjury? He wished also to know, supposing the offenders were out of the way, what excuse the Government could have for not offering a reward for their apprehension? He regretted that Bristol had not been disfranchised, like Yarmouth and Totnes, at least for seven years.
  MR. HOWES: Sir, as Chairman of the Bristol Election Committee, I must express my opinion that a Committee has rarely met that was more anxious to come to a fair and impartial conclusion. We were bound by Act of Parliament to say whether

  1745
  we had any reason to believe that there had been any extensive bribery at the Election, and those words, in my opinion, clearly exclude the idea of our giving expression to a mere suspicion. The hon. and learned Gentleman, after bearing full witness to the purity of the Committee, remarked that he admired their simplicity more than their purity. Our simplicity may have led us to form a suspicion, but our feelings of justice induced us to weigh the evidence brought before us, and we had no valid reason to suppose that there was any extensive system of bribery, though bribery to a small extent was proved. We gave our verdict, and I believe it has been generally accepted as fair; at all events, it was a conscientious one. I believe my hon. and learned Friend was rarely present, if at all, during the sittings of that Committee, and I will ask him whether it is possible for anybody to put himself in the position of a Member of the Committee when he has not heard the whole of the evidence adduced, or observed the demeanour of the witnesses? The witnesses brought before us were certainly not those who on any principle of natural selection would have been chosen to elicit the truth of the matter. There was certainly sufficient evidence of bribery to unseat the Member, but a great deal of the evidence adduced was utterly disbelieved by the Committee.
  MR. H. BERKELEYsaid, he must utterly deny that the evidence taken before the Committee, which he believed was as fair a one as ever sat, justified the supposition that corrupt practices had been carried on in Bristol to such an extent as would require the issue of a Royal Commission. No doubt bribery was carried on to a certain extent, and personation also; but suppose there were 500 such cases in a constituency of 13,000 persons, that could be no reason for proceeding against the city, or attempting to disfranchise it. He did not know whether Her Majesty's Law Officers would think it worth their while to crush the poor wretches implicated in these practices, many of whom had been driven to them by want, and some of whom had perjured themselves for 6s.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he regretted that he had not had leisure to read the evidence taken before the Committee from beginning to end, but so far as he had read it he entirely differed from the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Neate), who thought that the investigation had been conducted upon the plan
  1746
  of bringing forward as many cases of bribery as were necessary to unseat the sitting Member and of then going no further. As far as he (the Attorney General) could make out, every case of bribery was brought forward and pressed, in many instances upon most disreputable evidence. The Committee came to the conclusion that the evidence was not sufficient to authorize them in recommending that the proceedings usual in grave circumstances of bribery and corruption should be instituted. He had found that extensive bribery was not charged, nor was personal bribery charged against the candidate at all. The description of bribery rife at the last Election for Bristol seemed to have been carried on amongst the lower classes of the constituency, and not to have been instigated by the personal agents of the Member or the Member himself. He should like to know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman thought that it was the duty of the Attorney General in every case in which it was reported that there had been bribery at an Election, to take upon himself the office of public prosecutor, and institute proceedings against those charged with the offence. From that view he, at all events, begged to express his dissent, for it was utterly impossible, with the various duties which he had to discharge, that any one occupying the position of Attorney General could make himself thoroughly acquainted with all the evidence which was given before Committees in these cases. He quite admitted, at the same time, that in those instances in which it was proved that extensive bribery had prevailed it was necessary that those implicated in it should not go unpunished. Bribes it would appear were in the case of Bristol offered and received; but the result of blindly rushing into a prosecution when the persons who would come forward as witnesses were parties to those transactions, would be, as was well-known, that the Bill would be thrown out, or at all events that the proceedings would end in failure. Whenever a case came before him in which, in his judgment, it was the duty of the Attorney General, as the legal representative of the Government, to interfere, he should be prepared to do so. It was his intention to look through the rest of the evidence. But having regard to the Report of the Committee in the present instance, and to the fact that a new body of electors were coming into existence in Bristol, he looked upon it as

  1747
  unjust that such a penalty as the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed should be inflicted.

CRETAN INSURRECTION—QUESTION.
MR. MONKsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House, further Correspondence respecting the Disturbances in Crete, in continuation of Correspondence presented to Parliament, May 21, 1868. He thought he was justified in putting the question to the noble Lord, seeing that the documents to which he referred had been published in the St. Petersburg Gazette, and were therefore now public documents. He had himself received authentic information from Crete up to the 5th of July to the effect that the insurrection was still in full force, and that the Turkish general and the Turkish army were in a desponding state, and believed it to be impossible for them to re-conquer the country. He regretted that the noble Lord had expressed his intention not to interfere, except by friendly advice to the Porte; but he acknowledged that in taking that course the noble Lord was carrying out the policy of non-intervention in foreign affairs which had been sanctioned by the House, and had now obtained for some years. In asking the noble Lord whether he would lay on the Table any further Correspondence which he might have received, he must say that he thought nothing but the independence of Crete and its separation from Turkey would satisfy the brave men whose heroic struggle deserved more sympathy than they had obtained from the present Parliament.
LORD STANLEY: The only Answer that I can give the hon. Member is that since the month of May last—at which time I laid on the table Papers on the subject of Crete—no information has reached me which is of the slightest general interest or importance. The fact is that the state of things in the island has continued pretty much as it was. The attention of European diplomacy has been diverted to other subjects. I have looked through all the despatches which I have received since the period I have named, and I do not think there is any one of them of such general interest or importance as to make it worth while to lay it on the table of the House. It is not at all a question of keeping back any facts or any statements of opinion on grounds of
1748
policy. It simply comes to this—that there are no Papers on the subject of Crete which I think either the House or the hon. Member would at all care to see. The Reports are of the most commonplace kind. The state of things in the island, I repeat, has continued very much what it was; and no considerable operations have occurred in any quarter.

THE METROPOLITAN CATTLE MARKET.

  QUESTION.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer in reference to the Metropolitan Foreign Cattle Market, Whether he has made any arrangement with the Corporation of the City of London for carrying out this scheme of agricultural protection, or whatever it might be called? The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated a few days ago, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashton (Mr. Milner Gibson), that no definite arrangement had been come to with the Corporation on the subject. Since then, however, a Notice had been put on the Paper, developing a scheme under which it appeared that the metropolis would be taxed generally by a rate to be levied on all cattle brought to Smithfield Market. That Notice had disappeared from the Paper, and he should, therefore, like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any understanding had been come to with the Corporation of London for carrying out the provisions of the Bill; and, what in fact was the exact state of the negotiations between the Government and the Corporation on the matter?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, there was no agreement or understanding with the City Corporation. An Amendment of which Notice had been given by his noble Friend the Vice President of the Council had been withdrawn from the Paper, because they understood from the highest authority that it was against the Standing Orders. That Amendment therefore would not be proceeded with.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he wished to know whether it was not the fact that the Court of Common Council, or the Markets Committee of that body, had been called together to give an answer to the proposal which was to have been submitted by the Government, although that proposal was in violation of the Standing Orders of that House, and whether, through not

  1749
  taking care to inform themselves beforehand that their proposal was irregular, the Government had not adopted a course calculated to place the Corporation in a false position?
  MR. LIDDELLsaid, that before the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council rose, he wished to repeat his Question of the morning respecting the reported outbreak of the cattle plague in Russia.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, that since the Question of his hon. Friend the Member for Northumberland (Mr. Liddell) was put to him at the Morning Sitting, he had ascertained that information on the subject had been received at the Office, and he found the report alluded to by his hon. Friend was perfectly true. There had been an outbreak of Siberian plague in Livonia and other provinces, and also of rinderpest near St. Petersburg. Cattle plague had also broken out in Lower Egypt, at Gheza and Gezera, near Cairo, and other districts. In answer to the Question of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen), he had to state that that clause was framed on the proposition of one of the officers of the Corporation of the City of London; that that officer was mainly instrumental in drawing the clause; that he had laid it on the table after that gentleman had drawn it, and that he was not responsible for its informality.

FOREIGN CATTLE TRADE.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. HEADLAMsaid, he rose to call the attention of the Government and the House to a practical grievance seriously affecting the interests of his constituents at Newcastle-on-Tyne. Some years ago his constituents had an important and valuable trade in foreign cattle, partly derived from Denmark and Schleswig-Holstein, about the best grazing country in the whole world. That trade had contributed materially to increase the comforts and luxuries of the people of the district, but owing to the operation of the Orders in Council enforced by the Government it had been practically destroyed. Grave injury had been done to his constituents through their not being allowed to import any cattle from the districts to which he had referred except under restrictions that were fatal to the carrying on of the trade. He had sought to bring about a reasonable compromise, under which the law now
  1750
  existing in France might be applied to this country. The Government of France was a paternal Government. It undoubtedly sought the welfare of the people, that people being agricultural, and it put a stop to the importation of cattle where there was danger, but where there was no danger the importation was entirely free. It was most harsh to his constituents that they should be precluded from having cattle introduced into their district against which no objection could be made. These stories of the breaking out of the cattle plague abroad were certainly very opportune; but if the cattle plague had broken out in Egypt, or at St. Petersburg, or in Livonia, then let the Privy Council stop the importation from those places, but not from places where the disease did not exist. The practical effect of the present Orders in Council was to destroy the foreign cattle trade in his district. The evils inflicted under those Orders were unnecessary and uncalled-for, and he called upon the Government to give some assurance that they would not perpetuate the present system.
  MR. NORWOODsaid, he thought that his constituents at Hull also had a right to complain of their not being allowed the same privilege as was possessed by the ports of Liverpool and Southampton. The port of Liverpool had the advantage of being represented by two Gentlemen who sat on the Ministerial side of the House. Some time ago the Government was urged to allow the port of Liverpool to import cattle from Spain, Portugal, and France, and that privilege was conceded by the Government. The port of Southampton, which had also the advantage of having a Member who sat on the Ministerial side, obtained a similar privilege. Now, why had not that privilege been extended to Hull and other Northern ports? The reason seemed to be that as the hon. Members for these towns sat upon the Liberal side of the House their remonstrances had less weight with the Government. There was no good reason for stopping cattle coming from Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. The noble Lord the Vice President of the Council told him the other day that there was no port in Denmark proper from which cattle could be exported, but the fact was that there were five such ports. The cattle trade of Hull had been ruined. In 1865 no less than £27,000 was paid for the conveyance of cattle to Hull, and they sent in one

  1751
  year 28,000 head of cattle into the interior, but the restrictions which were imposed entirely cut off this supply, and the profits of merchants and importers from this source had vanished. The proper policy would be to stop cattle coming from infected districts, to place regulations upon cattle coming from suspected districts, and to leave the rest of the trade perfectly free. He challenged the noble Lord to deny this statement, that in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway there had not been a single case of cattle plague.
  MR. J. B. SMITHsaid, he believed that before long they would have to get up the same battle against the beef and mutton laws as they formerly waged against the Corn Laws. The hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Read) furnished him with a paper yesterday which stated that there were 22,000,000 sheep in this country, and that 5,500 had died from the disease. There could be no pretence for keeping out sheep upon this ground.
  MR. READ: The sheep brought the cattle plague.
  MR. J. B. SMITH: There could be no doubt that the object was to place obstructions in the way of the importation of foreign beasts.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, that his constituents suffered from the prohibition of which the hon. Member for Newcastle complained. Leith—the port of Edinburgh—as hon. Members knew, was the great entrepôt of the foreign cattle trade of Scotland. A very large number of animals had been brought there, not merely for consumption in Edinburgh, but for consumption in Glasgow, with its 500,000 inhabitants, and in all the towns around Glasgow. A large trade had existed in that way, but the Orders of the Privy Council had paralyzed that trade. In these circumstances, he hoped Her Majesty's Government would be prepared with some measure to relax the stringency of the laws which now existed, and to take away all impediments which were not absolutely necessary for the safety of the cattle of the United Kingdom. It was quite true that those whom he represented obtained a large supply of meat from the northern portions of Scotland; but if they were to be confined to that—if there was to be no competition with foreign cattle—were they not in the very same position as if they were told that they must depend for bread upon their home-grown corn? If obstructions were put in the way of foreign cattle, the Mr. Norwood
  1752
  price of meat in this country would inevitably be raised to a very considerable extent. He hoped, therefore, that more stringent measures would not be adopted; that the Orders of the Privy Council would be gradually relaxed; and that, unless very strong symptoms of disease were proved to exist, we should hear no more even of the law which now existed. He had no doubt that the cattle plague existed in certain divisions of the Russian Empire; he supposed it had existed there for at least half a century, and it would perhaps continue there to the end of time; but surely that was no reason why restrictions should be placed on the importation of cattle from other regions where cattle plague did not exist.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he hoped some reply would be given on the part of the Government to the statements and arguments that had been put forward from that (the Opposition) side of the House. He was one of those who thought it a good system under which restraints on the importation of foreign cattle were remitted to the Privy Council, for if they went beyond or fell short of their duty they could be called to account by Parliament. This, however, proceeded on the assumption that when hon. Members made statements in a becoming manner in behalf of their constituents the Members of the Government whose conduct was challenged would feel it their duty to rise for the purpose of giving an explanation. Now, this appeared to be a case in which a good system was not well administered, or in which one portion of that administration was grossly inconsistent with another portion. The ports of this country, from the West Coast of Scotland southwards, and round the Southern Coast up to the mouth of the Thames, were allowed the privilege of importing cattle from Spain, Portugal, and France. France, as he understood, was a country where importation was open, subject to vigilant observation from all the rest of the world—these things, he was afraid, being managed there infinitely better than here, and an example being set us, which we had not the wit to follow, of securing the health of the cattle without impeding trade or raising the price of food. Now, why was the importation of cattle from France permitted when France did not exclude foreign cattle in the way desired in this country? The main question, however, which he wished to put was, why the privilege of importing cattle from

  1753
  Spain, Portugal, and France was not granted to Hull, Newcastle, and Leith, as well as to Liverpool and Southampton? He would not suppose with his hon. Friend the Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) that the reason was that one of the Members for Southampton, and both the Members for Liverpool, sat on the Ministerial side of the House; while Hull, Newcastle, Leith, Aberdeen, and Dundee were all so unenlightened as to return Members who sat on the Opposition side. ["Oh, oh !"] He was protesting against that view; but he should like to hear some other reason assigned. He also wished to know, why the importation of cattle was not allowed from Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, as well as from Spain, Portugal, and France? The former countries being free from disease equally with the latter, the representatives of these ports had a right to know upon what ground these different regulations were based; and if no satisfactory reason could be assigned it might become the duty of some hon. Member, on the part of their constituents, to prevent the restriction and extinction of trade, and the lessening the supply of wholesome food for the people, by moving, even at this period of the Session, an Address to the Crown. The opinion of Parliament would thus be taken as to whether there should be a free supply of food in this country, or whether, as the noble Lord (Lord Robert Montagu) had intimated, we were to abandon the "new lamp" used since 1842, and revert to the "old lamp," which, he (Mr. Gladstone) would say, served the purpose extremely well—the "old lamp" being the law which prohibited the importation of foreign cattle, and the new one the measure introduced by Sir Robert Peel, for supporting which an hon. Member opposite (Mr. Neville-Grenville) took credit the other night. The "new lamp" having been thus denounced by the noble Lord, it was necessary that he should be asked with some jealousy for an explanation of these inequalities in the administration of the law by the Privy Council with regard to the countries and ports similarly situated.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, that having already spoken on the Motion for Adjournment, he must solicit the indulgence of the House in answering the questions and representations which had been addressed to him. The hon. Members who had urged complaints had failed to trace the effect to the proper cause. They had
  1754
  complained of the Act of last Session which enabled the Privy Council to define parts of ports, but they should have remembered that the importation of foreign cattle had not decreased, but had rather increased, since the passing of that measure. Even if the importation had decreased, it had not been in consequence of the regulations of the Privy Council, for in that case the decrease would not have affected sheep, whereas in point of fact, the importation of sheep, which came over in separate vessels, and did not come within the Orders of the Privy Council, had decreased to the same extent as that of cattle. The real cause of the decrease, as was proved before the Select Committee, was that when the prices for cattle and sheep were high on the Continent the animals were attracted to Paris and Brussels, it not being worth while to import them into this country at higher freights for longer journeys, unless prices were very high here, for the margin of profit was insufficient to enable the importers to make a livelihood. The reason why the privileges extended to the South Coast and to the West Coast up to Glasgow had not been granted to Newcastle, Leith, Hull, and other ports was this,—Spanish cattle had never been imported in any numbers on the East Coast; a few had been imported one year and the next year none, and the trade was entirely abnormal. It was evident that some persons had attempted to foster a trade in Spanish and French cattle on that coast, but had not succeeded, and the attempt had been given up before the cattle plague visited this country. It was, therefore, useless for the Privy Council to recognize a trade which could not thrive or be beneficial to the importers under any circumstances. With regard to Denmark—the Spanish trade was a totally different one from the Danish trade. The Spanish trade was carried on in certain ships which were set apart for that trade alone. These ships went from Liverpool to Spain for the purpose of bringing over casks of wine, and when there was space cattle were brought over also. Danish ships, on the other hand, went indiscriminately to Rotterdam and to the Baltic ports; they might, therefore, be contaminated, and the cattle brought over in them would become infected while on the voyage. Nearly all the cattle and sheep from all parts of the continent of Europe were, moreover, shipped at Geestemünde, and came

  1755
  thence to London. Cattle from Hungary, Livonia, and other provinces, as well as from Prussia and Schleswig-Holstein, were shipped together there, and arrived in London on the same day; so that if the cattle from any one province were infected, all the cattle shipped there would become infected also. This was his answer to the questions of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone).
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, that the noble Lord had not touched the case of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire; and, besides, the noble Lord was in error with respect to the commercial facts. The right hon. Gentleman had asked why Spanish cattle, which were permitted to come to the South and West Coast, were not permitted to come to the East Coast; and all the noble Lord had to say in reply was that there was a special trade between Liverpool find Spain which did not extend to the Northeast Coast, and, therefore, the cattle would not come there. If there was no importation of cattle at present from Spain or Portugal into the North-eastern ports, why impose any restrictions? That was a very good reason why the noble Lord should stand aside and not interfere. The trade, if a natural trade, would soon develope itself. But he was prepared to state, in opposition to the noble Lord, that there existed a large trade between Spain and the ports of Hull, Aberdeen, Sunderland, and Newcastle. There were large imports of ore, which was a very heavy cargo, and to fill up the unoccupied space necessarily left in vessels loaded with such cargo, cattle could be easily and most advantageously imported from Spain to these North-eastern ports.
  MR. CLAYsaid, that the noble Lord had stated that the only reason for not granting to the North-eastern ports the privilege granted to Liverpool was that there was no trade in Spanish cattle with those ports. Now, without entering into the question of the extent of the cattle trade between Spain and the Eastern ports, he wished to know what proof there was that, under present circumstances, the trade might not prove a paying one, when other ports prosecuted it so beneficially. He would claim, on the very grounds advanced by the noble Lord, that the Northeastern ports should be declared open for the entry of those cattle.
  MR. MOFFATTsaid, he must ask the House to pause before proceeding further
  1756
  with this measure. The noble Lord might declare that he would not allow certain articles to be imported into certain places because those places had no trade of the kind before. But it was the duty of the Government to encourage importations in every way. In 1866, 234,000 head of cattle and 800,000 sheep had been imported, while in 1867 the numbers had fallen to 177,000 head of cattle and 540,000 sheep; and yet the Privy Council plumed itself on showing such paternal care in providing for the wants of the people.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That this House will, at the rising of the House this day, adjourn till Monday next."—(Mr. Jacob Bright.)
  The House divided:—Ayes 38; Noes 105: Majority 67.

METROPOLITAN FOREIGN CATTLE MARKET (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 139.]
(Lord Robert Montagu, Mr. Hunt.)
METROPOLITAN FOREIGN CATTLE MARKET (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 139.]

  COMMITTEE. [Progress July 20.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee).
  Clause 3 (Constitution of Market Authority).
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would appeal to his hon. Friend (Mr. Selwin-Ibbetson) to withdraw his Amendment. It would be certain to give rise to much opposition and take up much time; and therefore, in the interest of those who wished that the Bill should pass, it would be more prudent to withdraw the Amendment.
  MR. SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that his sole object had been to advance the measure, but he was prepared, in deference to the wish now expressed, to withdraw the Amendment.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he begged on behalf of the ratepayers of London to express his gratification that this Amendment had been withdrawn.
  MR. MILNER GIBSON: I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as the Corporation of the City of London have declined to give any assurance that they will become the market authority, and have refused the terms the Government have proposed to them in order to induce them to become the market authority, why should their name not be omitted as well as that

  1757
  of the Board of Works? I am quite at a loss to know what the Government are are about. In the first instance the Government themselves proposed the Metropolitan Board of Works. The Committee struck out the Metropolitan Board of Works The Government requested the Board should be introduced, and now when it has been proposed to restore the provision, we are told the Government abandon altogether that part of their plan, and that the Metropolitan Board of Works are not to be their authority at all. This continual change of plan does shake my confidence in the Government. Within the last three days we have had from the Government three different plans. First of all we were told by the Vice President of the Council he felt confident that the City would undertake it. Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that he had a plan that would be sure to succeed with the City, that they were going to take it into consideration. At the Common Council yesterday, a very formal proceeding took place. A clause was put upon the Paper that the Islington market tolls were to be increased, and that £300,000 was to be advanced to the Corporation of the City of London. Yes: but the City of London rejected that offer. Now, I say, you have no market authority. As for the Commissioners, it is a perfect absurdity. We used to have three characters in this Bill. First, there was the Corporation of the City of London; if they would not take it, then the Metropolitan Board of Works would take it; and if none of these would take it, then there were to be five Royal Cattle Market Commissioners to be appointed by the Government. Well, then, where are we? Many agricultural friends of mine are of opinion that the Government have conducted this question in a very unsatisfactory manner, and I shall move a distinct Resolution that the course they have taken in regard to the Bill under discussion has been of a vacillating and unsatisfactory character. The House has a right to know clearly and distinctly who are to be the parties that are to manage the foreign cattle trade of this country: I beg therefore to ask the First Minister of the Crown—or if the First Minister will not condescend to answer, then the Chancellor of the Exchequer—as the Corporation have refused the office, and the Metropolitan Board of Works has been withdrawn from the Bill, who is to be the market authority in this Bill?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The right hon. Gentleman has asked me a question a great many times over, which I should have been perfectly ready to answer, if it had only been put to me once. The right hon. Gentleman wished to know what the Government were about? I will tell him very briefly. The Government are doing their best to pass this Bill. He says we have been vacillating in this matter. It is perfectly true that we are unable to pass this Bill in the shape that we should have liked, but that is owing to the machinations—["Oh, oh !"]—As exception seems to be taken to that word, I shall say that we have been compelled to alter our plan, owing to the operations—no one can take exception to the word "operations"—of those Gentlemen who are opposed to the Bill. The operations, I repeat, of those who have opposed us have thrown great difficulties in the way of the Government, and therefore they have been obliged to take the course which they consider most expedient in order to pass this measure. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of the withdrawal of the Metropolitan Board of Works from the Bill. Our reason for doing so was this: it was felt that a great deal of lime would have been lost in discussion, had we supported the proposition to keep that body in the Bill. The Metropolitan Board of Works was struck out of the Bill by the Select Committee, and, as time was precious, we did not think it desirable to persist in re-inserting it. Had we retained the Board of Works in the measure they would have been the market authorities. As the Bill stands, however, the Corporation of London may become so if they choose.—[Mr. MILNER GIBSON: They have refused.]—I do not believe that that is the case. They have only refused a proposed compulsory arrangement. An officer of the Corporation made a proposition to the Government, which was entertained; and the Government proposed that, if the proposition was inserted in the Bill, it should be compulsory on the Corporation to become the market authority. We propose to put in the Bill that the Corporation shall be the market authority upon certain terms; and in the event of their refusing, the Commissioners will then become the market authority. We have discussed the question of what funds there will be for the erection of the market, and we decided that the funds which the Commissioners would have to look to for this

  1759
  purpose would be the market tolls. The question has been asked, will persons lend money on the security of those tolls? We have reason to believe that they will. Of course, if capitalists refuse to lend their money the Bill will be inoperative with a Commission; but we understand that persons will lend money upon the security I have mentioned. Believing that to be the case, we shall press forward this Bill, leaving it to the Corporation of London to become the market authority, and failing the Corporation to the Commissioners. I hope I have given a plain answer to the question of the right hon. Gentleman—[No !"]—It may not be satisfactory to the hon. Gentleman who says "no"; but I have endeavoured to answer the question put to me as practically and as plainly as possible, and I hope the Bill will be allowed to proceed.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he thought the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had by no means been satisfactory as far as regarded the elucidation of the question raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne. ["Oh, oh !"] Hon. Members must make up their minds to allow the Bill to be discussed, or to postpone the debate. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that he was unable to proceed with this Bill owing to the machinations of Gentlemen on the Liberal side of the House. He (Mr. Ayrton) denied that such had been the case. The Government themselves were alone to blame for what had occurred. All the difficulties in connection with the Bill had arisen out of the fact that the Government, when they introduced the measure, did not deal frankly and fairly with the question. Had they proclaimed their design at the outset, the country would have been aroused and the Bill would have been defeated. But they kept back the material portion of their scheme until the measure was far advanced in Committee, and the financial scheme which they now brought forward as new they had under their notice when they first devised their scheme. They had therefore created the difficulties and were responsible for the reception which the Bill had met with.
  MR. NEATEsaid, if it was a matter of Imperial interest, that for the preservation of the food of the country, restrictions should be imposed on the importation of foreign cattle into the port of London, the public generally ought to contribute to meet the expenditure which would thus be
  1760
  incurred, and the whole of the burden ought not to fall upon the inhabitants of the metropolis. He thought the agricultural interest had great cause of complaint against the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was willing to give them anything but money. The measure was in a most unsatisfactory condition, and had better be put off till next Session.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, that looking at the amount of compensation that would be required, he doubted whether any persons would be found to undertake the duty of Commissioners. Recollecting the great loss which the country had suffered from the cattle plague, he had hitherto supported the Bill, but he should object to constitute the Metropolitan Board of Works as the market authority, because that body was already in debt, and was only able to get money the other day by the guarantee of the Government.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. LOCKE MR. LOCKE moved in page 2, line 16 to omit from "if" to the end of the clause. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had given the House no information as to the source whence the required funds were to come. It was quite certain that the City of London had refused to be the market authority. At the present moment the Corporation were losing £6,000 a year by the Copenhagen market, to which cattle of all kinds might be brought; and it was no wonder that they should decline to spend £750,000 or £1,000,000 upon establishing a new one, to which only foreign animals would come. The Committee, in their anxiety that nobody should be injured, said that everybody was to be compensated. The City knew very well what that meant. They would not undertake anything of the sort. It was really impossible to imagine what they would have to lay out, and they would be unworthy of public confidence if they undertook to establish this market for foreign cattle only. Their losses would be tremendous. He only looked at the clause in a common-sense point of view. It was evident that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was now in a more melancholy position financially than that in which he had been placed when that subject had last been under discussion. Then he had a prospect of getting money; now he could not hope for a penny. The Corporation of London had declined to accept the responsibility they had been invited to

  1761
  undertake, and it would be idle to expect that they would enter into any compact with the Government in reference to the matter. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them that he would provide no money to buy the land or to build the market; but that it might be done by mortgaging the tolls. But if the market were built it would never realize sufficient in tolls to meet the outlay. Land would have to be bought; both banks of the Thames would have to be compensated. When the City authorities, who had all the tolls of Copenhagen market, lost a large sum every year, would any man in his senses lend money on the prospect of such tolls? The whole thing was absurd and ridiculous, unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer would advance the money, which he would not, nor would the House agree to his doing so. Would the agriculturists, who were represented by hon. Members opposite, advance the money? As a metropolitan Member he would resist this clause to the utmost, hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to think that metropolitan Members had no feelings whatever in question where beef and mutton were concerned. If hon. Members opposite were not urged on by their constituents, they would take the same view that he did of this scheme, and agree to his Amendment.
  Page 2, line 16, Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "if," to the end of the Clause.—(Mr. Locke.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. MOFFATTsaid, they were told that there were some negotiations pending between the Corporation of London and the Government upon the subject, and he thought it would be convenient if the House were informed as to the state of those negotiations.
  MR. HEADLAMsaid, the Government were seeking to establish a market in the largest town in the world, contrary to the wishes of the inhabitants, as expressed by their representatives—the executive government of that town having declined to carry out the Bill. He would not have it imputed to him that he had sanctioned such a course even by his silence. The security offered to those who were to build the market was the continuance of a separate foreign cattle market, but he should use whatever influence he possessed here-
  1762
  after to injure and diminish that security by doing away with the system.
  MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would inform the House who the persons in the City were whom he represented as ready to advance the funds for establishing this market on the security of the tolls. He did not think any man out of a lunatic asylum would be found ready to advance the money on tolls which really presented no security whatever; for what guarantee could be given that any cattle would come to the market at all. Certainly, if the respective Orders in Council should be repealed, the foreign cattle would go back to its old channels, to be sent to London via Harwich, Newhaven, and Southampton, without going near the new foreign cattle market at all. Sheep might now be imported into Harwich (in vessels which did not bring cattle), and the moment the restrictions were removed the importation of sheep into the port of Harwich had revived. That would be the case with cattle as soon as the restriction was removed. This Bill had been supported by hon. Members on the other side in the hope that it would restrict the number of cattle coming into the London market. If the importation was to be limited, how were the tolls contemplated by the Bill as a security for repayment of the expenses of the scheme to be raised?
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, that the opinions of hon. Members opposite were contradictory. They maintained, on the one hand, that the Bill would be inoperative if it became law; if so, it followed that it could do neither good nor harm. If that were their honest belief, why did they come down, day after day, to oppose the Bill, losing both their time and their temper in the operation?
  MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, that while he admitted his belief that the Bill would be inoperative, he opposed it because it would affirm a had principle.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that hon. Gentlemen opposite had been vehement in their objections to the creation of the market proposed by the Bill; they now asserted that the market could never be started, even if the Bill passed. Nothing would suit the Liberal opponents of the Bill. Why could they not allow it to pass? They would do so if they really believed, as they said, that none but lunatics would advance money under the Bill towards the expenses of the market. It might be true that the City

  1763
  of London were losing £6,000 a year by their market, but it must be remembered that that market was in the heart of London and in a most expensive locality, and it did not at all follow that a market seven miles out of London would not pay its expenses. If the Bill could not be carried into effect, why should there be so much opposition? Let the responsibility of such a great failure—if failure it was to be—rest with the Government who proposed the scheme. Considering, however, the support the Bill had received in that House, let the proposal be at least tried.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, that if the Bill was now inoperative it was because the exertions of hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House had made it so. They had succeeded in sweeping away the proposals to rate the inhabitants of the metropolis, and to raise the necessary security by increasing the tolls in the market at Islington; a concession had also been made in the case of sheep, and in those three important respects the Bill had thus been rendered innocuous. In fact the financial part of the scheme had completely broken down. The Bill must be a complete failure. He should be glad, however, to understand explicitly from the noble Lord (Lord Robert Montagu) whether the report was correct that the Court of Common Council had refused to consider the Bill unless the compensation clauses were withdrawn, and further whether the noble Lord intended to secure the support of the City by abandoning those clauses, or to retain them and encounter the opposition of the City?
  MR. AYRTONsaid, the only object in pressing the Bill was to get the vicious principle it contained confirmed, and for that same reason he opposed it. ["Divide !"] As the Committee seemed indisposed to continue the discussion, he would move that they should report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Ayrton.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 32; Noes 105: Majority 73.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he must complain that while hon. Gentlemen opposite listened with great attention to charges brought against his side of the House, they met his vindication with persistent interruption. He was not disposed to submit to that. He maintained it was a false charge to say that his side of the House was doing what was absurd and inconsistent. There was
  1764
  nothing inconsistent in refusing to pass a measure that would not work, but which contained principles that were pernicious and mischievous. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had given some colour of practicability to the measure by telling the House that there were some commercial gentlemen who were willing to carry out the measure by contract. But what he wanted to know from the right hon. Gentleman was, whether they would undertake to pay for the compensations contained in the Bill?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I did not say we had received a tender; but that we had reason to believe that persons would come forward with the money.
  MR. MILNER GIBSON: Sir, I contend that this is a measure of confiscation. One individual will be deprived of property which, if sold in the market, would fetch £7,000 or £8,000. You are going to prevent the constituents of the Member for the Tower Hamlets from using their freehold property as the law allows them, though the Committee has decided that such a taking away of private property for the public benefit cannot be carried out without compensation.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I rise to Order. The question is, whether certain persons should be appointed Commissioners? and the hon. Gentleman is going into the question of compensation.
  MR. MILNER GIBSON: That is a reason why they should not be appointed.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It is not competent now to discuss it.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment does not involve the question of compensation.
  MR. MILNER GIBSON: Well, then, you propose to appoint Commissioners; I object to your appointing Commissioners. And why do I object? Because you have told us distinctly that these Commissioners are not to be provided with any funds. If you appoint Commissioners to take away property for which the owners are entitled to compensation, those Commissioners must be provided with money to give that compensation. This measure reminds one of the times of the French Revolution. ["Oh, oh!"] It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen to cry "Oh !" whose estates are not going to be meddled with; but if they were the owners of valuable wharves and landing-

  1765
  places, and were told that Commissioners were to be appointed to take away their property without funds to compensate them, there would be a perfect rebellion amongst them. Island here to resist this pernicious attempt to appoint Commissioners to take away private property without the consent of the owners, and without the means of compensating them. Is it necessary to have Commissioners to manage a dirty market, to be placed, as I understand, at the outlet of the main sewer, the most disagreeable place near the metropolis? ["Oh, oh !"] I deny that I am using arguments unfit to be heard in the House of Commons, though I may appear to be more energetic than I ought to be. The principle I advocate is a sound one—the principle you advocate is a dangerous one—a revolutionary one. I object to the appointment of Crown Commissioners to manage a cattle market. The proposition is ludicrous when we consider that these Royal Commissioners, with all their dignity, are not to have a farthing of money. I have another objection—I think it is a most objectionable principle to appoint Royal Commissioners to look after municipal affairs. A metropolitan market ought to be under the management of the metropolitan local authorities, and if there is a strong objection on the part of the municipal authorities to the scheme you propose, you have no right to force the municipality to carry it into effect, or to appoint Royal Commissioners to do so. If yon cannot induce the local municipal authorities of the City to undertake your scheme, rely upon it they believe that scheme not to be for the benefit of their constituents. The opposition to the Bill has been successfully carried on in two respects. First, it was proposed by the Bill to exclude all foreign cattle and sheep. Some of the sheep are now to be let in. Then, with respect to the 2nd clause, which provided for the imposition of rates on the inhabitants of London for the support of the market, the Government has been induced to withdraw that obnoxious proposal to tax the ratepayers of London in order to carry out a Bill which was intended to increase the price of their meat. ["No, no !"] Why, the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council admitted that the Bill would have that effect, and I can prove, out of the mouths of the witnesses for the Bill, that its operations would have that pernicious effect. Indeed, I will confine myself exclusively, in my criticism of the Bill, to the evidence of the Government themselves.
  1766
  Now, with regard to the price of meat ["Question, question!"]
  THE CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is out of Order.
  MR. LOWEsaid, he was as favourable as the Government could be to the principle of this Bill, and he did not approve some of the means which had been used in the course of these discussions to defeat it. But he wanted to make an appeal to the Government. It was quite clear that the market, if it was to be established, would involve a large expenditure of money. If they were in earnest—and he was in earnest in wishing to see it established—they ought to provide money for it. It appeared to him that they must have one of three things—either they must have rinderpest continually in this country; or they must seriously interfere with the internal traffic in cattle; or they must have all foreign cattle killed on their arrival. He believed the last was the best course to adopt; but he thought that in bringing in a Bill with that object the Government ought not to ask the approval of Parliament to a measure which would have no effect. If the carrying out of the Bill would involve a large expenditure of money the Government ought to show Parliament there was some reasonable exectation that the money would be forthcoming. To do them justice, he must say they had tried to do so. They had first proposed that the money should come from a body having large estates—the Corporation of London—and that the Corporation should depend upon the prospect of being re-paid by tolls. But he understood it was now admitted—in this, perhaps, he might be wrong—that the Corporation were not willing to take the matter up.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: They are not willing to bind themselves.
  MR. LOWEsaid, be was not astonished at that, because already they had a large market by which they were losing money. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Milner Gibson) had said that the Corporation resisted this Bill because it would not benefit their constituents. Not at all. They resisted it because they had an interest in another market. Then the Government had proposed that the market should be established by rates to be levied by the Metropolitan Board of Works; but he did not wonder that there should be a strong objection in the metropolis to have the expense of what was a national object thrown on the inhabi-

  1767
  tants of London alone. What, then, remained. As the Bill stood Commissioners, were to be appointed who would have power to charge tolls in the market when it was made, and who would have the power of borrowing money on the security of those tolls. The question, then, was, as to whether the security was adequate. The Commissioners would have the Act of Parliament empowering them to make the market; but the financial success of the market would depend upon its having a monopoly. What security would there be for its having a monopoly? The Orders of the Privy Council, which the Privy Council could at any time rescind or alter? That was not good mercantile security. It was not security on which to raise the large sum of money that would be necessary in this case. Therefore, what he would say to the Government was this—If they really thought this Bill one of great importance, as he really thought it was, let them be prepared to make some proposal, by means of which the money could be raised. It would be necessary to have, not only the security of the market itself, but also the security of a monopoly, which monopoly should not rest on the Orders of any Government. It seemed to him, therefore, to be essential that the whole subject should be dealt with by an Act of Parliament, and that the fate of the market should not be left to Orders in Council. If the Government were not prepared to adopt that course, the only other proposal they could make was one for providing the required funds out of the Revenue of the country. If the Government could not meet the difficulty to which he had directed their attention, he did not see any use in their proceeding with a measure which would be of no practical benefit.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he desired to know—supposing there was no difficulty about security—how the charge of £12,000 (4 per cent upon £300,000) a year was to be met for the first few years of the trust, and where the money was to come from to pay the interest of the money borrowed. If compensation was given, there would be no funds to pay the interest, and if the interest was paid there would be no money to pay the compensations.
  MR. DE GREYsaid, he thought it was evident that the intention of hon. Members on the other side was to defeat the measure by any means in their power. Their opposition was elaborately obstructive, and it might save time if the right hon. Gen-
  1768
  tleman at the head of the Government would give them an assurance that he was determined, under any circumstances, to pass the Bill, and that he would not advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament until the Bill was passed.
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, that the Bill, if carried, would probably be inoperative; and why, therefore, should it be pressed? ["No !"] Well, where was the money to be procured by means of which to carry out the provisions of the Bill?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the question had been repeatedly answered. He had stated several times that if the matter were left to the Commissioners they would have nothing but the tolls as a security for raising the money. The Corporation so raised money when the Islington Cattle Market Bill was passed. He had been assured that in the event of the Bill passing persons could be found who would be willing to advance money upon that security, and also that there would be no practical difficulty in constructing the market. In reply to remarks of the right hon. Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe), he could only say that a monopoly would be secured to the market as far as cattle coming into the port of London, and sheep coming with them, were concerned; though if the right hon. Gentleman were of opinion that the security was insufficient, it would, of course, be open to him to move that no cattle should come into the metropolitan area, except through that market.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he felt assured that his right hon. Friend the Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe) had no intention of interposing a difficulty. In his opinion, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had failed to give a satisfactory answer to the question as to how the money was to be raised. The right hon. Gentleman had stated, indeed, that he understood parties were ready to lend money on the security of the tolls; but he had omitted to mention how much money they were willing to lend, and for what purposes. This pecuniary part of the business had naturally been examined by the Common Council, who had estimated that £500,000 would be required to construct the market, and had arrived at the conclusion that, even if the interest was at a very moderate rate, there would be a deficiency on the Foreign Cattle Market Account of no less than £13,000 a year. It was true that in the case of the Islington Market the Corporation had had only the

  1769
  tolls to offer as security; but the result was that a deficiency of £7,000 a year had to be paid out of the general revenue of the Corporation, and that deficiency would be increased by the new market. It was not likely, therefore, that the Corporation would be willing to incur a fresh liability on account of the Foreign Cattle Market. Probably the gentlemen alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer might be willing to lend money for the purpose of building the market, but not for the purpose of paying the compensations. The last clause of the Bill provided that no compensation should become payable until the market was opened; and Consequently it might be possible to find persons sanguine enough to advance money to build the market; but would they advance on the sole security of the tolls the £500,000 which, according to the lowest estimate, would be required for the construction of the market and compensation?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he understood that parties who obtained compensation would have a lien upon the tolls. A remedy was provided in the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, and he believed that any person entitled to compensation might, if necessary, appoint a receiver to take in his behalf the tolls of the market, ["No, no!"] At all events, he was of opinion that under the last clause every such person would have a legal mode of enforcing his rights. It was evident, therefore, that persons advancing money on the security of the tolls would take into consideration the circumstance that the individuals who were entitled to compensation would be able to enforce their rights and get possession of the revenues of the market. He did not know what would be the amount required for building the market, but he imagined it would be considerably less than the sum named by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone). He had been informed, indeed, that only £300,000 would be required for that purpose, though he could not say what the compensation would amount to. Persons concerned in promoting the Bill had informed him that £100,000 would be a very liberal estimate for purchasing the freehold of all the premises used in the cattle trade, and of course if those premises were devoted to other purposes, the amount of compensation would be very small. Under all the circumstances he thought the,
  1770
  Committee need not be frightened by the sum of £500,000, which had been spoken of by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. In conclusion, he could only say he had been assured, during the last two days, that persons were willing to come forward with the money on the security of the tolls, even taking into consideration what would have to be paid by way of compensation.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, that the persons advancing the money might probably require the rules to be made more stringent than they would be as the Bill now stood. At present the Privy Council could make rules as to slaughtering cattle, which would interfere with the market. He understood that the offer of money did not include capital for compensation.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, it was his opinion that no part of the money to be borrowed under the Bill would be applicable to compensation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was clearly wrong in his interpretation of the Bill. The mortgagees would have nothing to do with compensation. They would get an immediate first charge upon all the tolls, apart entirely from compensation, and in point of fact the Bill was entirely deficient in any means whatever for providing compensation.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he must again protest against the Bill being proceeded with, and the property of his constituents confiscated without any security for their being indemnified.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN moved that the Committee should report Progress. It was now half-past One, and he thought that at any rate the debate should be suspended till three o'clock, in order to allow the other Business on the Paper to proceed. When that Business had been disposed of, they might again resume the consideration of the Bill in Committee, and go on with it until the next morning. It was quite clear that, inasmuch as it contained near forty clauses, it would take two months to pass it.
  Motion negatived.
  MR. SAMUELSONsaid, that no means had been provided for making this market, and the Bill would be totally inoperative.
  MR. FRESHFIELDsaid, he understood that parties were willing to lend the necessary funds, and that the market authority could create a mortgage on the tolls in respect of such loan.
  MR. COWENsaid, he was convinced

  1771
  it was totally imposssible to make this market by the means proposed by the Bill.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, the Bill provided for raising £300,000, which was £200,000 short of the sum required for opening the market. The people who advanced this would be empowered to sweep away the whole tolls of the market, and no means whatever of giving compensation were provided.
  MR. FRESHFIELDsaid, that if the sum of £300,000 were not sufficient the figures might be altered, and a sum sufficient to build and to compensate inserted in the Bill. He thought that sum should be £500,000. If the market authority was not provided with the means of compensating there would be an end of the Bill.
  MR. LEEMANsaid, he regretted the want of security in the Bill for compensation.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that what had fallen from the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Freshfield) had taken him by surprise. That Gentleman had said that the estimated cost of the market, including compensation, would amount to £500,000. That was not the case. The opinion of the financial agents of the Bill was that £300,000 would be an extravagant estimate, including compensation. Those agents stated that the fee simple of all the property for which compensation could be claimed would not amount to £100,000, and that those who claimed compensation would find it difficult to prove any appreciable loss of trade from the operation of the Bill.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he wished to know whether the clause relating to the Islington tolls that had been withdrawn was not in existence last winter?
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, it was not in existence a week ago.
  MR. AYRTONasked whether the substance of it had not been made known in the winter?
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUreplied in the negative.
  MR. J. LOWTHERcalled attention to the fact that this clause was not in the Bill, and there was no necessity for discussing it.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had brought up a Paper prepared by his agent which contained a statement of the sum required for compensation; but did the right hon. Gentleman vouch for its accuracy? And who is his agent? Did anyone ever hear of
  1772
  the responsibility of a Minister being shifted to the shoulders of an unknown agent? He (Mr. Milner Gibson) had heard that the compensation would amount to £750,000. The name of the agent might give them some security that the calculation was correct.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the Parliamentary agent promoting the Bill was his authority for the figures he had laid before the Committee.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, the best authority was the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Freshfield), who was a Member of the Committee; and he told them the whole cost would be £500,000. They ought not to proceed with the Bill until they should learn what was the source from which the £200,000 required for compensations was to be derived.
  MR. FRESHFIELDsaid, the Bill was a merely permissive measure, and could not be carried into effect unless the money were found. He therefore saw nothing to justify the pertinacious opposition it had encountered. That opposition seemed to him to be nothing short of factious.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, that no one would advance money on the security afforded by the Bill. He hoped that the Committee would not stultify itself by appointing the proposed Commissioners.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 83; Noes 31: Majority 52.
  On Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill?"
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that this Question involved considerations which the Committee had not yet even approached. He moved that the Chairman report Progress.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, that he was on the point of rising to make the same Motion, and he need not therefore say that he assented to it.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he hoped that if the Motion were agreed to, the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets would give some assurance that he would not interpose these obstructions to the future progress of the Bill.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he had not the least desire to interpose obstructions, if hon. Members would only listen with patience to what he had to say.
  SIR PERCY BURRELLsaid, he must complain of the manner in which the hon.

  1773
  and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) had wasted the time of the Committee by repeating his arguments usque ad nauseam.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

COMPULSORY CHURCH RATES ABOLITION BILL.

  LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
  Lords' Amendments considered (according to Order).
  MR. GLADSTONE, having pointed out the alterations made in the Bill by the other House, said, that he had some doubts whether they were all improvements; but as none of them were inconsistent with the primary object of the Bill—the abolition of the compulsory collection of church rates—he was willing to accept them. He would, therefore, move to agree to the Amendments made by the Lords.
  After a few observations from Mr. BERESFORD HOPE and Mr. HUBBARD,
  Lords' Amendments agreed to [Special Entry],

  METROPOLITAN FOREIGN CATTLE MARKET BILL.—QUESTION.
  MR. HENNIKER-MAJORasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, What course the Government, seeing the nature of the opposition to this Bill, intended to take upon it?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that since Progress had been reported Her Majesty's Government had considered the position in which they stood to this Bill, and had come to the conclusion that it was hopeless to proceed further with it this Session. The great majorities which had voted in repeated divisions had shown a very decided opinion on the part of the House in favour of the principle of the Bill and the necessity for such a measure. The difficulty, however, which had arisen in consequence of the City having declined to accept the market authority, and the very strong opposition to the further progress of the Bill, had put the Government in a position of so much difficulty that they did not feel justified in asking the House to spend any further time in discussing the measure during the present Session. The only course open to them, therefore, under the circum-
  1774
  stances, was to bring in a Bill in a future Session of Parliament to carry out the object.
  House adjourned at half after Three o'clock,