Commons Sitting of 6 July 1869

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEES—Seeds Adulteration, Mr. O'Neill and Dr. Playfair added: Poor Law (Ireland) Amendment (No. 2),nominated.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [July 5] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Savings Banks and Post Office Savings Banks.
Ordered—First Reading—Electric Telegraphs * [197].
Ordered—Metropolitan Building Act (1855) Amendment*; Jamaica Loans*.
Select Committee—Report—Public Offices Concentration [No. 296].
Committee—Contagious Diseases (Animals) (No. 2) (re-comm.)—R P. [103].
Committee—Report—Annuity Tax (Edinburgh)* [19–198]; Inam Lands* [193]; Pensions Commutation * [187]; Shipping Dues Exemption Act (1867) Amendment* [184].
Considered as amended—Stipendiary Magistrates (Deputies)* [176].
Withdrawn—Sea Fisheries (Ireland)* [51].
The House met at Two of the clock.

GENERAL COUNCIL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION AND REGISTRATION.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN GRAYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Has ''The General Council of Medical Education and Registration," appointed under the Act 21 & 22 Vict., c. 90, "represented" to the Privy Council, with a view to obtaining the co-operation of that body in improving the mode of educating and examining candidates for medical and surgical degrees, that the Official Reports forwarded to the Council for their information in the years 1865, 1866, 1867, and 1868, by the heads of the Military and Naval Medical Departments, complain of the "ignorance" of a large proportion of the licensed Surgeons and Physicians who annually present themselves as candidates for medical employment in the Army and Navy; and that the tabular Returns recorded in the Minutes of the Medical Council show that within the period embraced in the Reports named more than one hundred and fifty licensed Surgeons and Physicians who were entitled to hold any Poor Law or other Civil medical appointment in the Empire were rejected by the Military and Naval Medical Boards as persons to
  1270
  whom it would be dangerous to entrust the lives of Her Majesty's Forces because of their "ignorance" of the profession of which they are "licensed practitioners." If the Medical Council did not "represent" to the Privy Council that seventeen various kinds of medical and surgical diplomas or degrees were included in the list of those held by the one hundred and fifty candidates rejected for their ignorance of the elements of professional knowledge, did they represent to the Privy Council the case of any one of the licensing bodies who issued their degrees or diplomas with a view to put an end to the granting of licenses to practice, which the Reports and Tables recorded in the Minutes of the Council prove to be delusive as guarantees of practical medical knowledge; and, if the answers to the above questions shall be in the negative, to ask, is the Government prepared to take means to secure to the general public the same or similarly effective guarantees against the licensing of ignorant and incompetent men which are now enjoyed by the Military Forces of Her Majesty?
  MR. BRUCE: Sir, no such representations have been made by the Medical Council to the Privy Council either with respect to the medical men, rejected upon examination by the Military and Naval Medical Boards, or with respect to the granting of licenses to the 150 rejected candidates; but I have reason to know that the fact has come under the notice of the Medical Council and excited their serious attention. I am informed that the Privy Council is at the present time in communication with the Medical Council, with a view to considering whether the Medical Act may be so amended as to insure a higher efficiency in the medical profession of the United Kingdom.
  SIR JOHN GRAYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had not answered his second Question.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, that no such application had been made as that referred to in the Question.

REDUCTION OF WINE DUTIES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. AKROYDsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, If any further communications have been re-

  1271
  ceived by the Treasury on the subject of proposals for a reduction of the Wine Duties, in connection with negotiations for Treaties of Commerce with Spain and Portugal; and, if so, if he will object to lay such Supplementary Correspondence upon the Table of the House?
  MR. AYRTONsaid, in reply, that since the last Papers were laid on the table the subject had continued to engage the attention of the Government. The Correspondence was still going on, and as soon as he could lay the further Papers on the table he should be happy to do so.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) (No. 2) BILL.

  [BILL 103.] COMMITTEE.
  (Mr. Dodson, Mr. William Edward Forster, Mr. Secretary Bruce)
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 15 (Power to define ports, 1867, s. 46).
  MR. READ MR. READ moved, in line 37, to leave out "may" and insert, "shall."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he must oppose the Amendment, which he thought was unnecessary. Inspection was insured by the Customs Act, and the Privy Council would, of course, immediately on the passing of the Act, define the limits of ports.
  MR. G. GREGORYsaid, the Amendment, if carried, would be beneficial to the successful working of the Bill. It was desirable to prevent any cattle disease from being introduced into the country.
  MR. HEADLAMsaid, he thought the debate on the Amendment of the clause was not likely to lead to any satisfactory result. He intended at the proper time to raise the whole question of inspection by moving the omission of the clause.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEprotested against the permissive character of the Bill.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, he considered they were rather anticipating another Amendment the hon. Member for South-east Norfolk (Mr. Read) had to the clause. The effect of the present Amendment would be to define the ports of landing and no more, and it would not affect the cattle being slaughtered there.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. READsaid, he was afraid the next proposition which he had to make would not be so satisfactorily settled. He proposed at the end of line 38, to add—
  "And all foreign animals imported into Great Britain shall be landed only at such ports or the defined parts thereof (unless from countries in which cattle plague or sheep pox shall not have existed during the three years preceding, or through which animals shall not have passed during the same period from countries so affected) and shall not be removed alive from such port or defined parts thereof except for slaughter to some slaughter-house in the immediate neighbourhood, which shall be specially licensed by the Privy "Council, or except after undergoing a quarantine of not less than fourteen days.
  "Animals imported from such excepted countries, when imported in vessels which shall not have touched for a period of three months preceding at any port of any country which may have been affected with cattle plague or sheep pox shall be subjected only to such inspection and regulations as the Privy Council may from time to time by order direct."
  His proposition was founded on no spirit of hostility to the general principles of the Bill. His object was to make the application of the Bill more strict upon the home producer, and more certain for the foreign importer. There was nothing in the Bill compelling the Corporation to provide a market—and even if they did provide one, no importer would be compelled to send a single head of stock here. It was possible that a small out-of-the-way market might be provided for foreign stock, and that none but diseased cattle would go to that market, and then it would be said that the foreign market had failed; but, nevertheless, the tolls upon all home stock would be doubled. Now, there was nothing so bad for the foreign importer as uncertainty; and after all our experience, since 1865, he thought some definite plan should be devised of getting rid of Orders in Council -and embodying them in an Act. He believed it possible to define the countries which were the permanent sources of the disease—where the cattle plague was indigenous. It had been said that the long distance was a safeguard; but, in his opinion, everyday brought the danger nearer. Cattle from Vienna could be landed on our shores in the course of four days. In the Rinder-

  1273
  pest Return—for which he heartily thanked the right hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Headlam)—the vice consul at Jassy stated that, as the railway would be completed in about a year, the greatest danger would arise from the increased facilities of transport. It appeared from that Return that last year the cattle plague invaded the Austrian dominions, and then went to Galicia and Hungary, and from these districts we had been receiving hundreds of cattle ever since January last. The disease also existed in Poland, Turkey, Italy, and Russia. In the latter country, in one small village, 200 cattle died in the course of one day. In Turkey, 9,000 out of 10,000 were destroyed; in Galicia and Hungary cattle were decimated. It was said there was another safeguard in the strictness of foreign regulations. But many of these regulations were very lax. At Jassy the cattle plague was in permanent existence, principally owing to the negligence of the local authorities, who never took the trouble to ascertain the locality where the disease existed, or its intensity. In Warsaw the spread of the disease indicated a great neglect of the usual precautions. In Servia the authorities denied the existence of the disease, and had manifested every desire to conceal it. So far therefore as regarded the local authorities of that part of the continent, there was no safeguard wherever the disease existed. We ought, in his opinion, to draw a line right up from Italy to the north of Poland; all countries east of that line to be considered permanently dangerous. The result of the adoption of this Amendment, he might add, would be that a very large portion of the Continent would be exempted from the operation of the clause, including Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Spain, and Portugal. So much for the cattle plague. Now, with regard to the sheep pox. He readily admitted that the disease was less fatal, less contagious, and more easily managed than the cattle plague. It appeared from the authority of Dr. Williams, that that disease had, within the last twelve months, existed in Italy, the Netherlands, the North German Confederation, Mecklenberg, Oldenberg, Pomerania, West Prussia, and also in Russia and Poland. It might, however, be said that there had been no outbreak of sheep pox in England of recent years. He must say, on the con-
  1274
  trary, that such outbreaks had been of frequent occurrence. There had, for instance, been an outbreak in Norfolk, in 1847, which had lasted three years; and another outbreak in Wiltshire, in 1862; one in Kent, in 1866; and no less than seven in 1867, almost all of which had been traced directly to the importation of foreign sheep. Professor Simons, in his Report, made in 1864, stated that the disease killed about 25 per cent of the flocks, and in several instances, 75 per cent, leaving those sheep which recovered in a perfectly worthless condition. It was shown, too, on the authority of the inspectors of the Privy Council, that sheep not only carried the cattle plague, but were themselves subject to a mitigated form of that disease. Then, with respect to the Orders in Council, if sheep were associated with cattle they were treated as cattle; but if they came in a separate vessel they might be sent all over the country. He considered that Order not one of the best that could be made. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) had been informed by a deputation from the Thames Haven Company that there was no danger from sheep pox. Now, it existed to a considerable extent in Holstein, and importations from Tonning had commenced. The Thames Haven Company were so much afraid of sheep pox being detected at their wharf that they landed only their Tonning cattle at Thames Haven, and sent sheep up the river to London. The right hon. Member for Newcastle had expressed an opinion that the normal condition of the stock abroad was healthy. Now he (Mr. Read) contended it was diseased. His argument was this—that there were in this country diseases peculiar to our soil, but when large importations took place other diseases were added to those which already prevailed. Sheep, in foreign countries, were kept from year's end to year's end very closely confined, and it must be evident to anybody who knew anything about them that they were, under those circumstances, peculiarly liable to all sorts of skin diseases. It had been said that we ought to rely upon inspection. He believed that inspection was very well conducted now; but it was impossible in many cases to detect incubated diseases. Did inspection keep out the cattle plague in 1865; No; in that year, and in 1886 and 1867, it was

  1275
  not detected, and we had a fresh importation of the cattle plague. With respect to sheep pox, there were, as he had stated, seven outbreaks in 1867, showing the impossibility of detecting disease at the port of entry. Last August the Government learned that the sheep pox was rife on the Continent, and the inspectors discovered its presence at the wharves and killed some of the sheep imported; but in the case of others the signs of disease were not discovered until they reached the market, and had not the inspectors then found it out and killed them they would have spread disease all over the country. Last year he had proposed to introduce a similar Amendment to the present into the Metropolitan Cattle Bill, and it had the support of Mr. Milner Gibson, Mr. Moffatt, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen). He did not then move the insertion of the three years' proviso, and he was not now prepared to insist on that period of time, if it should seem to the Privy Council and the Committee that some other period of time might be more reasonably fixed upon. As to the construction of slaughter-houses at the foreign market, his idea was this—that if, as was stated, in 1873, Lord Lincoln's Act came into force, and all private slaughter-houses in the Metropolis were consequently abolished, he believed the Corporation had undertaken to provide some six or eight public slaughterhouses, which should all be connected with each other by rail. In that case he saw no reason for making at present any large provision for slaughterhouses. At present we imported about 5 per cent of all the live meat consumed in the kingdom. If the Bill was of any use at all, it would have the effect of saving from disease 5 per cent of our home cattle, so that its practical effect would be, not in any way to diminish our supply—because it certainly would not check foreign importation— but at the very least to increase it by 5 per cent. Under our present regulations the danger of the disease was steadily increasing. The introduction of diseased cattle could not be altogether prevented; inspection had failed; and he therefore hoped that the Committee and the Government would accept this Amendment.
  MR. M'COMBIErose to second the
  1276
  Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for South-east Norfolk. The agricultural community looked upon this Amendment as of the most vital importance. It was a matter of life and death with the tenant-farmers of Scotland, England, and Ireland; for if rinderpest got into their herds it was utter annihilation. The great increase of late years in the dead meat traffic in this country showed that no hardship whatever would be caused by the compulsory slaughter of foreign cattle at the ports of debarkation. He wished to lay before the House a few statistics bearing upon this point. Mr. Rudwick, of Berwick, the greatest dealer on the Border, killed 2,000 sheep weekly in the season for the London dead meat markets. In Fifeshire, there was an enormous dead meat trade, almost no meat being sent off alive. Coming to Aberdeen shire, we found that the export of live cattle to London was only half as large as it was ten years ago, while the dead meat trade had doubled in the same period. In 1859, the number of cattle sent alive was 20,400, and the quantity of dead meat was nearly 7,000 tons, or more than 23,000 head of cattle, calculating 6 cwt. to each animal. In 1861, the live cattle had decreased to 17,176—a falling off of between 3,000 and 4,000, while the dead meat had risen to 8,168 tons—equal to about 27,220 cattle. In 1865, the export of live cattle was only 13,589, as compared with upwards of 10,000 tons of dead meat, equal to over 33,700 cattle. He had not been able to get the exact statistics since 1865, but at present only about a-third were sent away from Aberdeen alive. During the season about 1,800 cattle were slaughtered there weekly, and only about 600 exported alive. The offals of the animals slaughtered were all consumed at Aberdeen, or within a reasonable distance. It was well known that the best of everything went to London—the best horses, the best oxen, the best sheep, the best grain, the best fish—and why? Because everything fetched the highest price there. If it were not for London and the West-end butcher, they would have but a poor demand for their prime Scots. Now, let them see where and with what did the West-end butchers apply themselves. The late Mr. Thomas Slater, the greatest West-end butcher, retailed 500 sheep a week during the Great Exhibition. His two sons,

  1277
  one at Kensington, the other in Jermyn Street, and Mr. Oakes were now the largest retail butchers in London. Between them they put about 100 cattle and 500 sheep through their hands weekly. Mr. Slater, of Kensington, bought one-half alive, the other half dead meat in the New Market. Mr. Slater, of Jermyn Street, bought every pound dead. And where did this dead meat come from? Three-fourths of it was Aberdeen dead meat. This would be found to apply to the other West-end butchers as well. He regretted to learn that there was a strong growing feeling among the tenant-farmers of Scotland that the Government had hitherto ignored their interests; but he trusted that before the next day of counting and reckoning came they would have no reason to complain that their just claims had been neglected. They feared no competition from abroad, but they feared a second visitation of rinderpest. They wanted no protection, but they wanted preservation from disease, and, therefore, he trusted the House would adopt this Amendment.
  Amendment, as amended, proposed, at the end of the clause, to add the words—
  "And all foreign animals imported into Great Britain from countries in which cattle plague or sheep pox shall have existed during the eighteen months preceding, or through which animals shall have passed during the same period from countries so affected, shall be landed only at such ports or the defined parts thereof, and shall not be removed alive from such port or defined parts thereof except for slaughter to some slaughter house in the immediate neighbourhood, which shall be specially licensed by the Privy Council, or except after undergoing a quarantine of not less than fourteen days. Animals imported from such excepted countries, when imported in vessels which shall not have touched for a period of three months preceding at any port of any country which may have been affected with cattle plague or sheep pox, shall be subjected only to such inspection and regulations as the Privy Council may from time to time by order direct."—(Mr. Clare Read.)
  MR. HEADLAMsaid, that he quite agreed with the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Read) that it was very desirable that foreign nations should know with clearness and certainty their position in regard to the restrictions affecting the importation of cattle into England; and he, therefore, supported the Amendment. The practical effect of the clause in its present form would be to destroy altogether the foreign cattle trade. That
  1278
  had been established by the clearest testimony. Similar regulations enforced by the late Government had put an end to a considerable portion of the importation which used to be carried on at Southampton, and had entirely destroyed the trade in cattle from Spain, Denmark, and Sweden, in all which countries the cattle were perfectly healthy. The Committee must look this matter fairly in the face, and consider if they were prepared by diminishing the supply to still further enhance the price of meat. How much such a clause as this would diminish it no one could say, because the foreign trade was capable of almost unlimited extension. The opinion of the highest authorities ought to guide the action of the Government. Well, Professor Spooner, Principal of the Royal Veterinary College of England, had declared—
  "That it would be a great mistake to do away with the restrictions on the London market if those on foreign cattle were to be maintained."
  And the Inspector General of Veterinary Schools in France had recommended the Government to allow the free importation of cattle from countries whose sanitary condition could easily be ascertained, such as France, Belgium, Baden, Wurtemburg, Bavaria, Prussia, Saxony, and Western Austria. The experience of the past year proved that the countries which followed that advice had acted wisely. The Royal Commissioners of 1665 had expressed the same opinion as the eminent professional authorities above mentioned, for they had placed on record their opinion that if an absolute embargo were to be placed on all the cattle in Great Britain, then foreign cattle ought to be slaughtered at the places of landing; but if—as is the case now—no restrictions were imposed in England, it would be sufficient to take care that all foreign imported cattle underwent inspection, and that none coming from any infected district should be sent to any market in Great Britain. The truth was that France, Spain, Prussia, Belgium, Denmark, and Sweden, were free from the cattle disease; only one supposed case had occurred in Holland during the whole of last year. Why, then, should precautions be adopted and restrictions enforced in England that were resorted to by no other country, especially when it was beyond doubt that they tended greatly to hamper and diminish the

  1279
  foreign cattle trade, if not altogether to destroy it.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUwished, in a very few words, to state on what grounds he would support the Amendment of the hon. Member for South East Norfolk (Mr. Read). He must begin, however, by stating that he differed from the hon. Member, for he had avowed his fear lest the right hon. hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. Headlam) should be made Vice President. Now he (Lord Robert Montagu) earnestly hoped that he might succeed to that post; for he would not exercise the functions of it for a week without discovering how wrong were all his present opinions and impressions. The Vice President of the Council (Mr. W. E. Foster), as all knew, had entertained prejudices fully as great as those which were now held by the right hon. Gentleman. Yet now those prejudices had all been laid aside; he had adopted five clauses of his (Lord Robert Montagu's) Bill, which had been rejected by the House, and other Amendments of his besides. The right hon. Gentleman had given nearly all that they had asked. The right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had mistaken the evidence of Professor Spooner. Professor Spooner was strongly in favour of separate markets; and he was so afraid of infection that he had stated that it was absolutely necessary to impose restrictions on the importation of foreign animals. On no account, he maintained, could they do away with the present restrictions. "But," said he, "the chance of infection from foreign animals is so great, and the chance of its being detected is so slight, that I doubt the wisdom of removing the metropolitan regulations, even after that the separate market had been established." This Amendment originated in a compromise. In 1867 a Bill was introduced and referred to a Committee upstairs. The promoters of that Bill desired that all foreign cattle without exception should be slaughtered at the water side, but Mr. Milner Gibson, Mr. Moffatt, and the President of the Poor Law Board, opposed that wise policy with the most untiring assiduity; so that at last the hon. Member for South East Norfolk, wearied out by the tortuous tactics and interminable arguments of these Gentlemen, proposed this Amendment with the
  1280
  view of putting an end to the bitter opposition which the Bill encountered, and with the hope that it might thus be passed during that Session. The hon. Member for South-east Norfolk thought that the Corporation of London would not be compelled by the terms of the Bill as it now stood to create this market; in that he was mistaken, because sub-section 2 of Clause 28 placed them in reality under a very strong compulsion to do so. If they failed to have completed, within two years, a separate market for foreign cattle, they would lose the monopoly which they at present enjoyed under their Market Bill of 1857. Any person or company might then form such a market for their own profit. He need not tell the Committee that there were a number of hungry speculators and wealthy capitalists who were eager to make such a market on their own account. He saw some of them in the House at that moment. The creation of such a market was, therefore, a certainty; for it would be made either by the City Corporation or by a private company. It was because this was the case that he desired to enact that foreign cattle should not be landed elsewhere than at the separate market; but as this might not be agreed to by the Committee, he supported the compromise of the hon. Member for South-east Norfolk. For this would be the state of things. There would be a foreign cattle market in London; there were already separate markets—or rather places of slaughter and sale of foreign cattle—in all other ports; and by an Amendment of his (Lord Robert Montagu's), which the Vice President had inserted in the Bill when it was committed pro formâ, the Privy Council would be unable to abolish these foreign markets. Well, then, he (Lord Robert Montagu) asserted that every local authority would be anxious for such a clause as that under consideration. Take one of them, that of London, for example. In order to make the market pay, the market authorities would desire to get as many beasts into their market as possible. Let not hon. Members think that those beasts which did not go for slaughter to the foreign market would have to go to the Islington market, for the metropolitan regulations were to be abolished, as the Vice President had stated; in fact, they could not be maintained.

  1281
  Therefore, without such an enactment as that now under consideration, a number of foreign beasts would be driven through the streets in every direction, to the private slaughter-houses of the 5,000 small butchers. This would be a great detriment to the new market. It would be to the advantage, therefore, of the Corporation, to cause as many beasts to be slaughtered there as possible; and the interest of the public was the same, for who, when hurrying to a railway station or obeying the calls of business, had not experienced the nuisance of meeting a herd of bullocks in the street? Besides, these private slaughter-houses are injurious to the health of the public. They are not, and cannot be, under control. They are always in densely populated parts of the town; and the filth, stale blood, and numerous contaminations, poison the air and taint the meat. Evidence had been given before the Commission upon sanitary matters, which was now sitting, to show that the effect of slaughtering cattle at private slaughter-houses was extremely injurious. The evil occasioned by these private slaughter-houses had been always so manifest that in 1844 an Act of Parliament was passed declaring that they should be utterly abolished. In those days, however, property was sacred, and due regard was had to the slightest shadow of a vested interest. The public thereupon agreed to submit to the nuisance and injury for thirty years, in order that the butchers might recoup themselves and make other arrangements. The small butchers had undoubtedly made the most of their thirty years, as the enormous difference between the wholesale and the retail prices of meat showed. Under that Act the interests of the butchers had been amply protected, but the convenience and health of the public had been utterly disregarded. He asked the Committte to protect the public from further nuisance, and their health from further injury. It was now full time to disestablish and disendow the butchers, whose vested interests had been amply satisfied.
  MR. LAMBERTsaid, those who supported the Amendment should be prepared to show that the restrictions imposed during 1865–6–7 had had the effect of preventing the importation of diseased cattle. In his opinion, those restrictions
  1282
  had been utterly futile, the disease having been eventually checked not by means of those restraints upon trade, but by compulsory slaughter. He challenged the noble Lord, or any Gentleman in the House to prove that a single authenticated case of cattle plague was imported into the port of London between July, 1865, when the disease commenced, and September, 1867. The Bill of the right hon. Gentleman was quite sufficient to protect the agricultural interests, and, at the same time, did not much interfere with the supply of cattle for consumers.
  MR. PELLsaid, he thought that the Amendment would tend to remove impediments to the free importation of cattle from those countries where the cattle plague did not exist, and to prevent the importation of the disease from places where it did exist. He agreed that nothing should be done to interfere with the supply of food for the people; the price of meat was already high enough to satisfy the producer and to render the consumer discontented. But it would surely be madness to imperil the safety of our 9,000,000 of cattle for the sake of the 200,000 which were annually imported from abroad. With regard to the sheep pox, he would merely say that, in the year 1865, it had been introduced into the middle of Northamptonshire by sixty Dutch sheep which had been brought from the port of London; and that it was owing to the unselfish action on the part of the landlord, who, at his own expense, killed those sheep, that the wide spread of the disorder had been prevented. He should, therefore, vote in favour of the Amendment, the terms of which were fully supported by the Report of the Committee of 1866.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that he felt it only right to state that he had met with no trace of anything selfish or unreasonable in the demands of the deputations from the country which had waited upon him on the subject. They had made no attempt to treat this as a matter of protection. His short experience of Office, however, showed him that this question was a very difficult one. On the part of the agricultural community there was a most natural fear of anything like a recurrence of the fearful plague from which they had lately suffered; and there was also a natural fear on the part of the consumers

  1283
  in great towns and those by whom they were supplied, lest any unnecessary restrictions should for a moment be encouraged. He did not think that the House would be of opinion that the foreign import of cattle was not a matter of great importance, or that they had not to deal with a great question in either continuing or making new restrictions upon the import of foreign cattle. The hon. Member who had just spoken ought to recollect that if we had 9,000,000 of English cattle, we did not kill all those animals every year. Figures which had come into his possession only a short time before he had entered the House showed that of late there had been a great increase in the importation. He found that in the two first quarters of this year 109,292 cattle had been imported as against 48,934 in the similar time last year, whilst in sheep the imports had been 415,239 as against 180,334 in the same period last year. That large increase, he might add, had arisen chiefly since the relaxation in the Order which the Privy Council had felt it their duty to make in February of the present year. He had no doubt that the Committee felt the same anxiety as the Government to have all the restrictions that were absolutely necessary, but no more. The reason why the restrictions were to a certain extent permissive in the case of foreign cattle, whilst compulsory in the case of home cattle was, because, by the very necessities of the case, discretion must be used by some person or other in applying the restriction to foreign cattle, They could not at that moment define the countries that had the disease in them, and some one must be left to exercise his discretion and the knowledge of the day in putting these restrictions into force. When they came to home diseases, on the other hand, they made the restriction compulsory; because they only came into operation when the disease had actually broken out, and when it was necessary that efforts should be used to stop it. There were three ways in which they might deal with the question of the importation of foreign cattle. They might let them in with perfect freedom, treating them as home cattle, without any restrictions whatever. He did not think, however, that even the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Headlam) would go that length.
  1284
  They might, on the other hand, take the precaution of absolutely prohibiting their coming from all countries abroad without being slaughtered; but he apprehended that such a proposition would not meet with general approval. They were driven, therefore, to using some discretion somewhere, and the only question was as to the amount of that discretion. It was their duty do two things. What the Government proposed was, that it should be their duty, on their own responsibility, if they had reason to believe that the cattle plague was raging in any country, to stop the importation from that country altogether; and, in the second place, if they had reason to suppose that there would be any damage in cattle coming in and being allowed a free transit in this country, it should be open to them not to allow such free transit, but, if they thought proper, to oblige those cattle to be slaughtered at the port of entry. Now, how did the hon. Member for South-east Norfolk (Mr. Read) propose to deal with the question? The whole of his Amendment turned on the insertion of the three years' provision, but the Committee would, in his (Mr. Forster's) opinion, defeat its own object in attempting to prescribe how men to whom a discretion was to be confided should use that discretion. It was an unpleasant position for anyone—it was especially unpleasant for him—to have any discretion in the matter; but he believed that the best safeguard to rely upon was that those who had the fullest knowledge of the circumstances should have the responsibility thrown upon them of taking the necessary steps to prevent the introduction of the plague. The proposed limit of three years during which a country should have been free from disease would be a most restrictive rule in some cases and a dangerous rule in others; for there might be a country which was the home and centre of the plague, and yet it was quite possible that it might have been free from the plague for three years in succession; while, on the other hand, there might be a country which was, upon the whole, free from the cattle plague, and yet within the three years some isolated cases might have occurred, because it was near to an infected district. His hon. Friend said he could not rely on the regulations of fo-

  1285
  reign countries, and that might be true of some—such, for instance, as the Danubian Provinces; but, on the other hand, take Prussia. Prussia bordered on a country where the cattle plague was indigenous, and yet its regulations were so satisfactory that it was kept free—though of course they could not prevent the plague creeping through now and then; yet it would be absurd and unreasonable to say that Prussian cattle should be excluded because the plague had, in one or two instances, passed across its frontiers. His hon. Friend (Mr. Read) was right in saying that by drawing a certain line north and south they might say that the plague came from the east of that line, while the districts to the west of it were free. Perhaps his right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. Headlam) would say—"Well, find out the cattle from the east of that line and put them into the restricted ports." But that was just what they were unable to do. He believed, for instance, that they would be perfectly safe in admitting cattle from Prussia, and Schleswig, and Holstein; but before they could admit them they must make some arrangement with the Prussian Government that they should not allow Polish cattle to be sent here instead of Prussian cattle. His belief was that if his hon. Friend's Amendment of three years was carried the effect would be to compel the slaughtering of all foreign cattle at the ports of landing. His hon. Friend said that cattle would come in from Italy, but there had been cases of cattle plague in that country within the last three years. France was just outside the limit. If the terms had been three years and a-half French cattle would be prohibited now, because we sent over the disease to the Bois de Boulogne, and infected some of the animals in the Zoological Gardens there. That showed the difficulties attending any attempt on the part of the Committee to frame rules and regulations for the Government to act upon in this matter. Again, therefore, he said it was better to leave the matter to the discretion of the Privy Council, and to hold them responsible for what might happen. His hon. Friend doubted if the London market would ever be made. But he agreed with his noble Friend (Lord Robert Montagu) that there was no fear of the Corporation making the market, for they knew that
  1286
  if they did not make it other persons would. The noble Lord had said that it was the interest of the Corporation of London to have the clause with the three years' term rather than not. That, however, was not their opinion, and it was a great inducement for them to come into the arrangement that the clause was framed just as the Government drew it up. As to the other ports, he thought that any attempt at compulsion would be resisted. What the Bill did was to make each of those ports understand that unless it formed a separate market for foreign cattle, it would be put to certain inconveniences; but he did not think that that inconvenience would be sufficient to ensure in every case the provision of a market. At Hull it was done because the Corporation happened to have two markets, and they agreed to use one of them for foreign cattle. By arrangement with the Corporation he also saw his way to a separate market for London. But that was done by arrangement. If they had not been able to make that arrangement the Government would have come to the same dead-lock to which their predecessors were brought; because he did not know how he was to have compelled the Corporation to make the market against their will, or how to over-ride their powers, or where to have found the money. And these difficulties would equally apply to other towns. He believed that if the present Bill passed there would not be more separate markets erected, but that cattle from the suspected countries would come into the port of London, where there would be a separate market for them; while the northern and eastern ports would be supplied from Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and, if the Government could make arrangements with Prussia, from Schleswig and Holstein. He did not think his hon. Friend had strengthened his case by references to the sheep pox. It would be a dangerous thing for the House to interfere with the enormous importation that was now taking place in sheep; especially when they remembered that the sheep pox was not like the cattle plague, but could be dealt with by the existing regulations, which this Bill would strengthen, and put down as soon as it appeared. Something had been said about the Government dropping the Bill if this Amendment were carried. Now, he was not disposed to turn sulky

  1287
  on the House because he could not have his own way. There was a considerable portion of this Bill which the introduction of this Amendment would not affect so much—the regulations regarding pleuro-pneumonia, foot and mouth disease, and others; but he believed that the effect of the three years' limit, compelling, as it would, the slaughter of all foreign cattle at the place of import would make things worse then they were at the present moment, and that it would be better to have London with a cordon round it, than to have a separate market accompanied with all the inconveniences which it would entail on the other ports.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, he considered that whatever legislation they adopted on this subject some interest must suffer; but the primary object ought to be to prevent the great calamity of cattle plague ever again occurring in this country. What were the best means of arriving at that end? There were two proposals—that of the Government and that of his hon. Friend the Member for South-east Norfolk (Mr. Read). The disease was not indigenous; it came from abroad by the importation of foreign cattle from an infected country. This fact should be some guide as to the best means of preventing its recurrence. The Bill proposed to invest the Privy Council with power to issue such restrictions as might appear necessary when the danger of the disease was apparent. But they might not be aware of the danger till it was too late. When "the plague had begun," it was extremely difficult to "stay" it. The Amendment of his hon. Friend went to the root of the evil, and by compulsory slaughter would prevent the possibility of the disease being circulated through the country. Prevention was better than cure, and he, therefore, hoped the Committee would join with him in supporting the Amendment.
  MR. HUNTsaid, they were all agreed in the desire to keep rinderpest out of the country, and that it was not desirable to place such restrictions on the import of cattle as would prevent people getting meat as cheap as possible. He thought they might arrive at some solution of the present difficulty without going to a division. He thought with his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council (Mr. W. E. Forster) that three
  1288
  years was too long, and he would venture to suggest that that limit might be considerably reduced. The precise limit would remain matter for consideration, but, perhaps, eighteen months would be sufficient.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERadmitted that the suggestion of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Hunt) was a very conciliatory one, but he did not think the question of time had much to do with the matter. The result of putting in any time whatever would be that the Privy Council would, in a great measure, feel free from responsibility, and be content to throw it on the law which the House in its wisdom gave for their guidance.
  MR. HUNTsaid, the Amendment might be so worded as to leave full discretion with the Privy Council.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the suggestion of his right hon. Friend had been fully considered by the Government. The Committee would have enormous difficulty if they undertook to save the Privy Council from trouble and responsibility in this matter.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that if he had entertained any doubt whether the principle of the Amendment proposed by his hon. Friend was right he had been convinced by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted the danger in the clearest terms, but he said—"Leave the matter to the discretion of the Privy Council." Now, it was impossible to look at the network of railways in Europe, connecting those places where it was admitted these diseases were never wanting with other countries, and not to see the impossibility of avoiding the risk of infected cattle coming into this country. There was one sentence in the right hon. Gentleman's speech which shook his opinion as to the safety of intrusting the Privy Council with this discretion. He told the House that if the disease did come the Privy Council would stamp it out at once.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he was referring only to the sheep pox.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he believed that both sides of the House agreed that no restrictions should be imposed except those which were absolutely necessary. The real question was, whether the Government suggested any precautions which had more safety in them than the Amendment. The Privy Council au-

  1289
  thorities had told the country that more cattle had been taken away from the consumers of this country in consequence of the cattle plague than the number of foreign cattle imported. He should support the Amendment.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, that the practice in France was precisely in accordance with the hon. Gentleman's Amendment, with the exception of the three years limit. Cattle from all countries having a clean bill of health were allowed to enter France. Cattle from doubtful countries were inspected on the frontier, and if found healthy were allowed to enter. Cattle from diseased countries were all stopped on the frontier and slaughtered on the spot. In consequence of these precautions, France had always been free from the cattle plague, in consequence of its having been arrested on the frontier. We had not displayed the same prudence and foresight, and the consequence was that 285,000 cattle had been slaughtered at an enormous waste of food, and loss of several millions sterling. In Aberdeenshire the moment a disease appeared in any village the cattle were slaughtered, and the consequence was that Aberdeen-shire had suffered less than any other county in Great Britain. If the hon. Member would consent to restrict the time to one year the Government might then be trusted to operate as the occasions arose.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he should propose to substitute the words—
  "And all foreign animals imported into Great Britain from countries in which cattle plague or sheep pox shall hare existed during the eighteen months preceding, or through which animals shall have passed during the same period from countries so affected shall be landed only at such ports, or the denned parts thereof, and shall not be removed alive."
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that the Committee could define the ports thus, and give certainty to the trade. Some discretion ought to be vested in the Government; but every exercise of discretion on the part of the Government was Protection in its vilest form. It increased the price, because it created uncertainty and restricted trade. He had been for many years connected with the management of a veterinary College, and all the veterinary surgeons agreed that inspection was a farce unless they could detain the animals for a certain number of
  1290
  hours. If England with the advantage of her insular position were to take the same precautions as were employed by France, there would be no difficulty in keeping out the cattle plague. He should vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, that France had been referred to as an example to this country. Now, he would point out that the Bill of the Government agreed in every particular with the practice of France. The Government proposed to admit, free from all restrictions, cattle from countries possessing a clean bill of health; to exercise their own vigilance in the case of cattle coming from suspected countries; and to absolutely prohibit the importation of cattle from countries where, in their opinion, the disease existed. The Amendment of the hon. Member for South-east Norfolk (Mr. Read) proposed that they should prohibit the importation of cattle from countries where the cattle plague had existed within three years; but if that suggestion were to be adopted we should be unable to avail ourselves of perfectly safe markets in the event of single cases of cattle plague occurring in the districts within a period of three years. Under such a regulation no cattle could be imported from Prussia, which was notoriously free from cattle plague, although the authorities permitted cattle from suspicious districts to pass through the country in trains under certain restrictions.
  MR. READsaid, he would accept the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt) and would amend his Amendment by reducing the term from three years to eighteen months. He begged to move the Amendment of his Amendment accordingly.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid he would take occasion to explain that the Government had not deemed it their duty to divide the Committee on the question of amending the Amendment, because they thought it was only due to hon. Members that they should be permitted to put the views which they held on the point at issue in their own way. He must, however, observe that he was opposed to the Amendment almost as much in its altered as in its original form, because it was impossible for the Privy Council to know whether in a large

  1291
  country—such, for instance, as Prussia;—disease had, or had not existed, within a period of eighteen months.
  MR. READ: If the right hon. Gentleman cannot know, the Privy Council ought, and should not have to rely solely upon inspection.
  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 162; Noes 220: Majority 58.
  On Motion, That the Clause stand part of the Bill,
  MR. HEADLAMsaid, that, after the concession made by the Vice President of the Council (Mr. W. E. Forster), he should not move, as he had intended, that the clause be omitted, and he trusted that the clause might be carried into effect without the establishment of a separate market in London.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, if it was understood that the City of London was not to provide a separate market, he would endeavour to defeat the Bill by all the means in his power.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 16 (Power to prohibit landing, 1848 (I.), s. 1).
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, he had an Amendment to the effect that the words in the clause which provide that this power should be exercised in the case of foreign cattle "brought from any specified country or place" should be omitted. He believed that it would be impossible for the Privy Council to determine which was the particular country from which cattle brought to our shores from Rotterdam and other foreign ports had originally come. He moved in page 4, line 40, after "animals," to insert "either generally, or with certain specified exceptions."
  MR. LIDDELLsaid, he should be glad to know what machinery the Government had set to work in order to obtain information as to the existence of rinderpest in foreign countries. What channels of information did they possess, and was the information received reliable? Certainly the impression was that the Privy Council was not very well "posted" in that matter, and that they often knew less about it than private individuals.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he was very glad the question had been asked. He confessed he had himself the same notion in past years as to the information possessed by the Privy Council. But since he had been in Office he had found that, very much owing to the care bestowed by the noble Lord (Lord Robert Montagu) the means of obtaining information possessed by the Privy Council were as good as well could be. That fact had already been admitted in the course of this debate; for the hon. Member for South-east Norfolk (Mr. Read) admitted the accuracy of the Return which had been given to his right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. Headlam). The information was obtained through our constant communication with the consuls resident in those countries where cattle plague was supposed to exist; and during the time he tad been in Office he had never found their information seriously contradicted, or even anticipated by any private information. It was his opinion that the Privy Council was in a position to obtain as much information as could be obtained.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsuggested that inspectors should be bound to keep an accurate register of animals slaughtered.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he should attend to the suggestion.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 17 to 21, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 22 (Provision of wharves, lairs, &c, 1867, s. 47.)
  MR. WINGFIELD-BAKER MR. WINGFIELD-BAKER moved at the end to add the words—
  "And the power hereby given is not to be altered by any Orders of Council under the provisions of this Act."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he would inquire into the matter, and if he found that the clause required amending he would move an Amendment on the bringing up of the Report.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 23 to 26, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 27 (A) (Special provisions respecting metropolis).
  COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, this was the most important clause in the Bill,

  1293
  and hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would give some explanation with regard to it.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that this clause empowered the Corporation of London to make the market; and it was merely intended to carry into effect the agreement that had been entered into between the Government and the Corporation, under which the latter had undertaken to make the market. He had said on a former occasion that he believed they would be able to make such an arrangement with the Corporation; and nothing could have been more candid, more straightforward, or more business-like, than the proceedings of the gentlemen who represented the Corporation in this matter. In the event of the Corporation not making the market by the 1st of January, 1872, they would by the next clause cease to have power as the local authorities, they would lose their monopoly, and they would lose the additional tolls which under the Bill they would be allowed to levy. Under these circumstances, there could be no doubt that the Corporation would make the market, and would carry out the intention of the clause in a substantial manner.
  MR. CORRANCEsaid, he was quite content to accept on this subject the assurances of the right hon. Gentleman, whose conduct with reference to this Bill had been most straightforward and courteous. The Corporation of London appeared to have learned wisdom upon this question, and had discovered before it was too late, that, unless they were content to co-operate with the Government and the House upon this matter they would lose their trade.
  Clause agreed to
  Clauses 28 to 33, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 34 (Determination and declaration of local authority, 1867, s. 12).
  MR. MILLERmoved, in line 21, after "surgeons," to insert "or in their option by one of the inspectors in the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council.'' His object was that there might be some definite authority to declare whether rinderpest existed or not in the country. Dr. Scott, a great authority in Scotland on the cattle plague, attached great importance to the proposed Amendment.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he thought it best to rely on the local authorities in
  1294
  the matter, and not let them suppose that a gentleman from London would do the work for them. If, however, Scotch Members attached importance to the Amendment in its application to Scotland, he would be ready to confer with them on the subject before the bringing up of the Report.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. G. GREGORYproposed at end to add—
  "And the charges and expenses of such veterinary surgeon or surgeons shall be expenses of the local authority under this Act."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERthought the Amendment would go further than the hon. Gentleman intended, but promised to consider the matter before the Report.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 35 to 44, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 45 (Exception for railways, 1867, s. 23).
  COLONEL SYKES COLONEL SYKES moved, at end, to add—
  "Or the travelling to market of home cattle imported by sea from any port in the United Kingdom."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he thought the Amendment would go much further than his hon. and gallant Friend meant. The object of the clause was to enable railways to carry cattle through infected districts; but the Amendment would enable cattle to travel in any way, which would be quite unsafe.
  Further consideration of clause postponed.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Friday, at Two of the clock.

ELECTIONS (WALES).—RESOLUTION.
MR. RICHARD, * pursuant to notice, rose to call the attention of the House to the proceedings of certain landlords in Wales towards their tenants on account of the free exercise of their Franchise at the last Election. He had a large number of Petitions which he begged to present, complaining of oppressions practised by the landlords, and asking redress from the House. He had not taken this course on his own judgment alone. Six weeks or two months ago there was a meeting of the Liberal Members for the Principality, convened

1295
by his hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, at which, after hearing the facts which it would be his duty to state to the House, a Resolution was adopted that the subject should be brought before Parliament at the earliest possible moment. It was no pleasure to him to discharge this duty. On the contrary, he could say with the utmost sincerity that it pained him deeply to have to call in question in this public manner the conduct of any portion of his countrymen, however widely they might differ from him in his political views. But things had come to such a pass in the Principality of Wales since the last election, that he felt it incumbent on him, in the interests not only of justice and the freedom of election, but of public order and tranquility, to try to put a check upon practices which, if not checked, must exercise a most prejudicial influence on the public peace and the good understanding which ought to exist between the various classes of society in the country. He would endeavour to explain in a few sentences the real political condition and circumstances of Wales, and he might, at any rate, urge this plea in claiming the indulgence of the House, that Wales had not often intruded itself on their attention; for whilst there had been discussions on English, Irish, and Scotch questions in abundance, both in this Session and in many others, no question relating to Wales had occupied the attention of Parliament, so far as he knew, within the memory of man. The inhabitants of the Principality were thorough Liberals in their political principles, and he need only adduce in support of that assertion two facts—first, the character of the religion they professed; and, secondly, the nature of the political literature which they encouraged. The Welsh might be described as a nation of Nonconformists; and, certainly, the bitterest hater of Dissent that ever lived, if he knew the circumstances under which they became so, could hardly find in his heart to censure them very severely, unless, indeed, he were of opinion that utter ignorance, irreligion, and immorality were evils less than dissent from any system of ecclesiasticism which might happen to have been established in a country. But, being Nonconformists in religion, they were by necessary consequence Liberals in poli-
1296
tics, for a Dissenting Tory was a kind of lusus natureœ which was seldom or never met with. But it was not Nonconformists alone who were Liberals. He was happy to say that in Wales, as in all other parts of the kingdom, some of the truest and staunchest advocates of Liberal principles and policy were to be found amongst the members of the Church of England. But between Liberal Churchmen and Dissenters there was an overwhelming majority of the people who were Liberals in their political principles. The second fact he would adduce was the character of the literature circulating among the people. The Welsh had a large literature in their own language; nine newspapers were published in it, all of them advocating Liberal principles, with the exception of one which called itself Conservative-Liberal, which had a very small circulation, and was sustained by subsidies from the Welsh landowners. There were, besides, sixteen other periodicals, all supported by the Nonconformists, which, so far as they had any politics at all, were Liberal. In confirmation of this, he might refer to the report of a meeting held at Bangor last January, under the presidency of the Bishop of the diocese, with the object of promoting the interests of the Established Church in Wales by providing more churches and curates, and—as the circular convening the meeting expressed it—by establishing a newspaper in the Welsh language, on sound Church of England principles; at which Mr. Robert Isaac Jones stated that he had ten years before started a Welsh Conservative paper, but in six months he found it would be impossible to get the country to read it. An impression prevailed in England, which some landowners in Wales were willing enough to encourage, that the people had a sort of blind feudal attachment to the lords of the soil, whose lead they were prepared to follow in political matters without inquiry. There could not be a greater delusion. In a former age, no doubt, they took part in political contests less like citizens contending for their rights than clansmen battling for their chieftains. That time was past. Feudalism was dead in Wales, as it was everywhere else. Education and political intelligence had spread among the people; but that was precisely what certain classes of the Welsh landlords could

1297
not or would not understand. They would not understand that they were no longer lords over serfs of the soil, or chiefs among clansmen, but men among men, with certain advantages of wealth, station, and superior education; but surrounded by an intelligent, improving, reading, and reasoning population, who could be guided and influenced only by an appeal to their understandings and consciences, and not by feudal and social coercion. At the last election there was unusual excitement in Wales, principally owing to the fact that the political education of the people had been gradually advancing, so that a much larger number had begun to look with interest upon public questions; and, secondly, because there was then a question before the public in which it was possible to feel a deep and real interest, and behind that question a man in whose sincerity and earnestness it was possible to feel confidence. Both parties prepared themselves for the conflict—on the one side a Liberal and Nonconforming population, and on the other side the Church and Conservative landowners. The battle was fought vigorously, and he should not have had one word to say about it, except to express his satisfaction at the result, were it not that some Conservative landlords during and since the election had pursued a course, the tendency of which was to destroy all freedom of election, and to reduce the people to complete political serfdom. He wished, however, to guard himself against being supposed to bring a sweeping and indiscriminate charge against all the Conservative landlords of the Principality. Par from this, some of them had acted with the most honourable impartiality, and not only did not attempt to coerce the votes of their tenants, but took measures to let them know that they were at perfect liberty to exercise their votes according to their conscience. He would go further and say that some of those of whose conduct he complained were, apart from the evil spirit of party, amiable and kind-hearted gentlemen, accustomed to act considerately and liberally towards their tenants. But, unfortunately, they were afflicted with the monomania of believing that the franchise which the law conferred on persons belonged to the land. They looked on the vote apparently as coming within the operation of the Game Laws,
1298
something like a pheasant or a hare, which nobody was to dare to touch unless they gave permission; and if any one presumed to canvass their farmers he had no doubt they looked upon, and would like to treat him as a poacher. With this conception of the divine right of landlordism, the House would not be surprised to find that they conducted themselves in a very high-handed fashion at the last election. He would read an extract of a letter sent to him within the last few days in reference to one of the landlords of Cardiganshire. This letter stated that—
"Soon after the two candidates announced themselves, all the tenants on the Nanteos estate within the neighbourhood for some miles round received notice to appear on a certain day at Nanteos, which they did, all with the exception of my informant, who was well aware of the object in view. The tenants were there and then pressed hard to promise their vote to the Tory candidate. I do not know whether any threats were held out then or not, but they were sorely pressed, and with one or two exceptions they gave in. The following day my informant was working in the farmyard, and Captain Phelps, a relation of Colonel Powell, and his principal agent, happened to pass, and he cried out—'Very well, old fellow, I'll bear you in mind again after this,' alluding to my informant's absence from the meeting on the preceding day. He has had notice to quit, after being in occupation for many years.'"
He was sorry to have to say anything of Colonel Powell, who had sat in the House for many years as Member for Cardiganshire; but he had been more severe than any of that county, and all on his estate who had voted for the wrong candidate had received notice to quit. He had a letter, sent by the agent of another landlord to a tenant before the election, dated "Derry Ormond, Friday"—
"Sir,—I am given to understand that you and Mr. Oliver as (sic) been about selecting votes for Mr. Richard among the Derry Ormond tenants. What business hare you to interfeer (sic) with the tenants on the Derry Estate, and I trust you won't do so again. But mind your own business. If not, I will mind you before the 24th of next March. I am now desired to tell you, from Mr. Jones, that he expects you to vote at the coming election for his cousin Mr. E. M. Vaughan, and if you refuses (sic) to do so, you will have to leave and all others that refuse to vote according to Mr. Jones's wish.—Sir, yours truly,
"W. COTTRELL
"To Mr. Rees Jones, Voilallt Factory, Lland-dewibrefi."
This tenant, in spite of the threat, dared to vote in favour of the hon. Gentleman now Member for Cardiganshire, who then sat behind him, and, in consequence, he had received notice to quit

1299
his holding. He had been offered to have his holding back on payment of £10 a year additional rent, and giving a written guarantee that, for the future, he would vote for his landlord. He had another letter from a landlord, who owned several farms in Carmarthenshire, who, before the election, sent round to his tenants a gentleman named Bowcott, to desire that they would vote for the Conservative candidates. These tenants being Dissenters and Liberals, addressed a memorial to their landlord, asking, in the most respectful terms, that they might have permission to vote according to their consciences. To this the landlord replied, under date, November 20, 1868—
"I received a memorial yesterday, by post, with the names of my tenants, in Carmarthenshire, attached to it. Tours being the first in the list, I shall address my reply to you, and request you will make known its contents to those hereafter named. I cannot allow it to pass without remarking upon it, and first of all I must express my surprise at your making any difficulty in complying with my request conveyed by Mr. Bowcott, who was authorized by me to ask you to vote for Messrs. Jones and Puxley. As I am better acquainted with you, from seeing more of you, than I am with my other tenants, and from all you have professed for me, I feel surprised you should not have set a better example. Many, if not all my tenants, have lived with me for many years, and upon terms of confidence and good-will; and the continuance of such good understanding ought to be the aim as long as the connection between landlord and tenant continues. The severance of such good feeling, I fear, is the object of teachers who mislead them. As I said before, it is not desirable that a breach of confidence should take place where none existed before. I rarely, if ever, asked you, or either of you, to do anything for me; and as circumstances, from time of life, may prevent my ever asking you again a similar request, and as you well know my wishes, I certainly expect you will vote with me for those gentlemen.—I am your well wisher,
"C. R. LONGCROFT.
"To John Jones, E. Williams, and the other tenants."
The memorial was signed by six tenants, several of whom had been accustomed previously to attend the meetings of the present Member for Carmarthenshire— who sits on this side of the House—but after the receipt of the reply five of them voted for the Conservative and one for the Liberal candidate, this last having since received notice to quit. He had also a conversation between the same landlord and one of his tenants, John Davies, who attested the statement with Ms signature. The statement was as follows:—
1300
"'Mr. Longcroft: Will you give your vote to Mr. Vaughan?—J. D.: I don't intend voting for anyone. I intend being neuter—I am a quiet man.—Mr. L.: Then, John, if you want to be a quiet man all your life, so far as I am concerned, give me your vote.—J. D.: I can't, sir.—Mr. L.: Then you prefer Mr. Richards to me.—J. D.: You don't state the case fairly, sir. It's not you and Mr. R., but Mr. Vaughan and Mr. R.—Mr. L.: Is it not I that gave you your vote, John?— J. D.: Yes, sir; but if you didn't, maybe I might have had it from some one else.—Mr. L.: Well, you will not give me your vote?—J. D.: I can't, sir.—Mr. L.: Then, John, you will have no vote again as my tenant.'
"I testify that the above is a correct statement of the conversation which took place between Mr. Longcroft and myself concerning the vote. I made the above known at the time to some of my friends.
"(Signed) JOHN DAVIES."
He had also a letter of another Welsh landlord—a clergyman in Somerset; and as this rev. gentleman had appended his name to his letter, and published it in the newspapers, there was no harm in saying that it was G. R. Bishop, and that he held an estate in Carmarthenshire. On that estate there was a Methodist chapel, built probably by an ancestor of Mr. Bishop; but when it was known that the now hon. Member for Carmarthenshire was coming out as a candidate, Mr. Bishop sent to the trustees of the chapel a letter, in which he said—
"If Mr. Sartoris will come forward and announce to a constituency that has for a quarter-of-a-century returned none but Conservatives, that he will be the follower of a man who, while he extends his right hand to Archbishop Cullen, gives his left to Mr. Miall, to be drawn anywhere, places his body in a mud bath, and takes what the Saturday Review calls a dose of Finlen; if, after such inconsistencies and abject flunkeyism, for the sole purpose of being raised to an eminence from whence, in spite of his great talents and appearance of intellect, I believe he would still be unable to contemplate his own position with calm judgment and discretion; if, after that, he will be his follower, and go to the poll and win, then all I can say is, that I shall be heartily ashamed of my own native county. However, I have something further to say of a personal nature to you who are the trustees and members of the Dissenting chapel that was built upon my land as far back as nearly three-quarters of a century, under a lease of ninety-nine years, at a nominal rent of 7s. a year. Now, would you not think it very hard, if, at the expiration of that lease, I, or my next representative, would decline to renew it? And would you not consider it, moreover, a sacrilege on our part, if we proceeded to dismantle the walls of the buildings and the court-yard wherein—unless my memory fails me—I saw some tablets to the memory of your dead? Being a minister of the Church of England, and whose duty it is to defend the existence of my Church, as much as

1301
her doctrines and her formularies, I ask you not to shoot your arrows at my Church by voting for Mr. Sartoris. Learn from this to do to others what you would wish to be done by. Behold! am willing to place in your hands the scales of justice, and to say—' Whatsoever measure ye shall mete, the same shall be measured to you again.'"
But the dénouement of this ease was rather curious. The rev. gentleman in his haste, or acting under extreme excitement, had misread the terms of his lease; for when the poor people to whom this letter was addressed, examined the instrument, they found it was a lease not for ninety-nine years, but for 999 years—before the expiry of which it might be fairly assumed that the rev. gentleman would have passed into a pleasanter country, let us hope than even Somersetshire, from which he thought he would look back without much complacency upon the attempt he had made to coerce the consciences of his fellow-Christians. The effects of these proceedings was that hundreds of the people were compelled to vote contrary to their convictions. He himself had been down in Cardiganshire during the elections, where he was well-known from his birth, and where, in consequence, the people had opened their hearts to him, and the impression left on his mind, from all he had heard and seen there, was that an amount of mental anguish had been endured at that time which it was difficult to measure. These men were intelligent, conscientious, religious men, who knew the importance and responsibility of the duty that devolved upon them as voters, and their convictions being decidedly Liberal, they were nevertheless dragged to the poll, some of them strong, stalwart men, with tears in their eyes. ["Oh, oh!" and, laughter.] He was sorry that hon. Members on the opposite side found food for laughter in this. What had been done since the elections? Two or three months ago his hon. Friend the Member for Cardiganshire and himself began to receive letters from that county, and other Members received similar communications, speaking of the course taken by the landowners in giving notice to their tenants. One of them wrote—
"We are in as great a want of tenant law in Wales as they are in Ireland. Last week notices to quit fell upon the people of this county—Cardiganshire— and that of Carmarthenshire like a shower of hailstones. Nearly every Tory landlord in the county served those of their tenants who voted with the Liberals or remained neuter
1302
with a notice to quit their holdings on the 29th of September next."
Another correspondent near the same date writes also from Cardiganshire—
"All the independent tenant-farmers about here who voted against their landlords have received notices to quit, and there is no doubt the understanding is general between the landlords of the county from one end to the other. They may not turn them out, but they will advance their rents to such a pitch that they cannot pay their way, and unless the ballot is obtained before there is another General Election, I don't know what is to become of the Liberal cause in Wales.…. There are petty revenges wreaked on the heads of poor alms-receiving old women for having dared to shout "Richards for ever."
He was anxious to state, that when the communications to which he had alluded had been received by his hon. Friend and himself, they had taken great pains to investigate the cases that had been brought under their notice. They had prepared a schedule of questions asking for information on all the important points involved, such as the names of the tenants, the names of their farms; how long they had been in occupation of their farms; the names of their landlords; whether any arrears of rent remained due; whether any reason had been assigned for giving them notice to quit, except the way in which they had voted; to what religious denomination they belonged, &c. He had received accurate answers to these inquiries; and he held now in his hand the result, in a tabulated form, from which it appeared that there were forty-three cases in Cardiganshire, in which it had been ascertained, upon evidence which must satisfy any impartial mind, that all these men had received notices to quit, served upon them for no other cause whatever but that they had voted according to their consciences. He had twenty-six similar cases from Carmarthenshire, some of which were of a most touching and heartrending character. Many of the farmers had been long on the estate, and some of their families had been in possession of the farms for 200 years; but when they asked the agent to withdraw the notice, he said—"No; you thought it your duty to vote against your landlord, and you must go to your friends for farms." He found among these cases, that of a farmer who, seven years ago, had to leave another farm he held under the well-known Miss Morris, a lady who, acting notoriously under clerical instigation, sent notice to her

1303
tenants that unless they attended her church they must give up their holdings. This man was a father of eight or nine children, and as he had suffered great loss much sympathy was felt with him. Another case was that of Caleb Morris, a man with ten children, who had notice to quit. He besought his landlord's agent to let him retain the farm, but was met with a refusal, and the disappointment so weighed upon his mind that he died. After his death his widow, thinking her forlorn condition and her ten children would awake sympathy, renewed the application, but the landlord would have no word to speak to her. He had also a letter from the gentleman who was sent to make inquiries and receive statements from the lips of the sufferers themselves—
"The expulsion of a large number of Liberal tenant-farmers from their holdings for voting in opposition to the dictates of their landlords is also a matter of scandal and notoriety. Indeed, it is heartrending to witness, as I have witnessed, the agonizing emotions of families at the thought of having to leave the homes of their childhood, rendered dear and sacred to them on account of old family recollections. Some of these families had dwelt upon their farms for centuries, and are now, like the Pilgrim Fathers, about to seek a home in a foreign country, where they may obtain the political and religious freedom which is denied them in their Fatherland. On several occasions I was told by a weeping wife it was very wrong of the Legislature to induce her husband to believe that the vote for a Member of Parliament was his own and not his landlord's; for, under that impression, he had voted according to his conscience, and, as he thought, for the good of the community, and thereby incurred the displeasure of his landlord, and was under a notice to quit. And not only do these innocent men suffer by the outrages upon their most sacred feelings, but they are absolutely robbed, and I fear, in some instances, ruined, by tyrannies practised by their unscrupulous landlords; I know of many instances where the poor farmer had worked, and laid out for the improvement of his farm sums between £200 and £600, under the impression, and with the full belief, that he would have to remain there and enjoy the fruit of his labour. But in this he was mistaken; for, having unfortunately dared to vote for the Liberal candidate, he gave mortal offence to his Tory landlord, and this was enough to for ever sever the connection between them, no matter how long or how intimate that connection may have been. The tenant must leave his farm, or have his rent advanced, so as to make him sensible of the danger of exercising his political judgment in opposition to his landlord. I sincerely trust, Sir, you will endeavour to impress upon Parliament the necessity of bringing in a Bill to withdraw the votes ironically, under the present circumstances, said to have been given these tenant-farmers, by the late Reform Bill, or a Bill legalizing the Ballot."
1304
The great hardship and injustice existing in Wales consisted in the fact that there was no law, or agreement, or custom, which would enable the tenants to obtain any adequate compensation for the improvements they effected in land. The result was that after being engaged in the cultivation of the soil for, in some cases, thirty and forty years, and after having buried their industry and capital in that land, they might be sent away at any time without having any claim for the money they had invested and the improvements they had made in the land they so long possessed. To turn a man out of his holding after so many years' possession for nothing but political reasons was, in his opinion, not alone oppression, but flagrant robbery. He considered the course pursued by those Welsh landlords was both highly reprehensible and foolish. If the object of those landlords was to keep in cheek Liberalism, surely the means taken by those persons were neither right nor likely to succeed. If they imagined they could change the political opinions of the people of Wales by this system of oppression he believed that they would find themselves much mistaken. The contrary had been the effect, as one of his correspondents stated in these words—
"In my opinion there has never been a, time in our history when the upper classes and the members of the Church of England were so unpopular in Wales as at present,"
For they had contrived to make it a question between Church and Dissent, as well as between landlord and tenant, as he found that out of the sixty-nine cases in Cardiganshire and Carmarthenshire that had been inquired into, all the landlords who served the notice were Churchmen, and, with one solitary exception, all the tenants who received the notices were Nonconformists. He believed these landlords were pursuing an insane and suicidal policy, inasmuch as they were setting themselves against the feeling of the whole country. There was an old Welsh proverb, the meaning of which they should understand, if they knew no other fragment of the language of the people among whom they lived. It said—and it was the only bit of Welsh to which he would treat the House—"Trech gwlad nag Arglwydd"— which means, being interpreted—and perhaps, it may have a wider applica-

1305
tion than to Welsh landlords—"A country is stronger than a lord." There was only one additional remark he had to make upon the communications he had read to the House. It was his pleasure and pride—as it was the pleasure and pride of all who sat in that House for Wales—to know that they represented a country which was less stained with the guilt of serious crime than any part of the United Kingdom. Maiden assizes were by no means uncommon occurrences in some Welsh counties, and notably so in regard to this very county of Cardigan, where the system he had been denouncing to-night had been most extensively carried out. Lord Chief Justice Bovill, who visited North Wales last year as Judge of Assize, expressed his delighted astonishment at the almost total absence of crime, by the remark that, so far as the natives of the Principality were concerned, there seemed scarcely any necessity for Her Majesty's Judges to visit their country at all. But if the wholesale notices that had been given were to be followed by wholesale eviction, he hoped—devoutly and earnestly hoped—that the people would remain the same quiet, orderly people that they had proved themselves up to the present. He would use whatever influence he possessed over his countrymen to induce them to be so. But when gross wrong was inflicted in the name of law, for which they had no redress, they were putting fearful temptation in the way of the people, and if any outbreak of resentment were to take place, who, he would ask, would be to blame? He would leave it to the good sense and wisdom of the House to reply to the question. He was aware that an attempt had been made to establish a sort of counter-charge by alleging that unfair and undue influence had been exercised on the other side by Nonconformist congregations and ministers. An hon. Gentleman opposite had undertaken, on a former occasion, to give the House some information respecting the character and condition of Dissenting churches in Wales, of which he knew about as much as he does of the inhabitants of the moon. He told the House there was no religious freedom in Wales; that if any man voted contrary to the opinion of the majority of the congregation he was immediately sent to Coventry—a power, he said, which was largely exercised at
1306
the last election. He was happy to have this opportunity to give that allegation of the hon. Gentleman the most absolute and unqualified denial. There was not the shadow of a foundation for it. The hon. Gentleman who had made the charge might have known, if he had thought fit to inquire—and he denied the right of any man to drag large and respectable bodies of his countrymen before this House, in order to brand them with dishonouring accusations, without first inquiring whether there was any foundation for them, and he had not made those inquiries. He would have found that the great Dissenting bodies of Wales had contradicted those accusations in the most indignant and emphatic terms that language could supply, and had challenged their accusers—a challenge which he then repeated in their name—to produce a single well-authenticated case from Cardiff to Holyhead, where the member of a Dissenting church in Wales had been expelled from his membership, or been deprived of any office he held in that community, or been subjected to ecclesiastical censure or discipline of any kind on account of the vote he gave at the last election. He would advert to another statement made by the same hon. Gentleman, that none were admitted to Welsh Dissenting churches except on the payment of money. A more absurd charge never fell from human lips. There were between 3,000 and 4,000 Nonconformist churches in England and Wales, and he would dare to affirm that there was not one among them in which a money qualification was a condition of membership. There were many of the poorest of the people who paid nothing, but were, on the contrary, helped by the charity of their brethren, but who were none the less welcome to whatever privileges the society had to confer. But then, they were told, that in some inexplicable fashion, Dissenting ministers had been coercing the members of their congregation. It was amusing to observe the widely different characters in which Dissenting ministers were made to figure according to the exigencies of political controversy. When it was thought necessary to decry the voluntary principle, that principle by which—as the hon. and learned Member for Richmond stated in his great speech on the second reading of the Irish Church Bill—Christianity conquered the world, but

1307
which had fallen into such utter disrepute in the estimation of modern Christians, that they could scarcely find language strong enough to express how much they distrusted and despised it—when he said it was thought necessary to decry the the voluntary principle, then the Dissenting minister was a mere slave, held in such abject submission to the opinions, and even to the whims and caprices of his congregation, that he dared not speak out the truth that was in him. But when it was found necessary to utter recriminations against those who complained of landlord tyranny, then the slave westerns formed into the most absolute of despots, who held his people in such thrall that they dared not call their souls their own. But surely the same man could not be a slave and a despot at the same moment under precisely the same relation; the fact being that he is neither the one nor the other, but simply the chosen religious teacher of a certain number of persons, between whom and himself there exists no relation but what is purely voluntary, and which may be dissolved at any time at the will of either. He did not deny that Dissenting ministers had taken a very active and earnest part at the last election. And why not? Indeed it appeared to him that there was a little insincerity amongst them all round on the subject of clerical and ministerial interference in politics. He had heard clergymen of the Church of England censured for the active part they had taken in the last election. He must say he thought such censure wholly unreasonable. Considering how nearly and vitally the question before the country concerned them, they would have been more or less than men if they had not thrown themselves earnestly into the contest. But then, while hon. Gentlemen opposite found no fault with the vehement vigour with which the "drum ecclesiastic" was beaten on their behalf in Lancashire and elsewhere, when anything was said of Dissenting ministers or Catholic priests meddling in politics, they turned up the white of their eyes in sanctimonious disgust at such awful profanation of the sacred office. It seemed to him, he confessed, an unworthy and ignoble conception of the Christian ministry, which assumed that the man who entered it lost his rights, or was absolved from his obligations as the citizen of a free State. That was not the way he had learnt what
1308
Christianity exacted of us. If there was in politics something unhallowed or unclean, which a man of saintly profession could not touch without injuring his spiritual nature, then in what a nice case they all must be in that House. But, in conclusion, he must thank the House for the kind indulgence with which it had listened to him while endeavouring to lift his voice on behalf of his poor oppressed countrymen. He knew these men well. He knew some of the actual victims personally. He had known the class to which they belonged long and intimately, and he dared to say that a more quiet, honest, industrious class was not to be found in any part of the United Kingdom. He knew how by ceaseless toil, and honourably pursued from early morn to dewy eve, they extracted a scanty subsistence from an ungenial soil, rendered to them still more ungenial by the conditions under which, for political reasons, they were obliged to cultivate it. He knew how amid all this hard labour they nevertheless devoted no inconsiderable portion of their time and exertions, and scanty means, to diffuse education among their still poorer countrymen, and to support the religious institutions that were dear to their hearts. And, knowing all this, said the hon. Member, my bosom swells with sorrow and indignation, when I find such men trampled under foot by these little tyrants of the field. I invoke the sympathy and protection of this House on their behalf. It is not much they ask of you. They only ask that you will not permit the franchise you have bestowed upon them to be converted into an instrument of torture for their consciences, and into the means of oppression and ruin to them in their worldly circumstances. In a word, they ask that, as respects the rights you have given them, or rather the duty you have devolved upon them, and the importance and responsibility of which they feel, they shall be permitted to discharge that duty fearlessly and independently, as the free citizens of a free State. He begged to move the Resolution of which he had given notice.
MR. G. O. MORGAN: * In rising, Sir, to second the Motion of my hon. Friend, I trust I need offer no apology to the House for the course which we have thought it right to take in bringing this matter before it, for, notwithstanding the sneers of hon. Gentlemen opposite, I

1309
dare to affirm that this House cannot be more legitimately—aye, or more usefully occupied, than in guarding the purity of the sources from which it draws its own existence. But it may be asked what is there to distinguish the case of these Welsh farmers from other cases of electoral intimidation which have from time to time been brought before Election Committees of the House, or before the Judges appointed to try Election Petitions, but have never been made the subject of comment or animadversion in this House? Sir, I think my hon. Friend, in his admirable speech, has shown that the grievances which he has brought forward are not only exceptional from their gravity, but unique in their circumstances. I have often heard it said, and for aught I know it may be true, that in the districts of England which correspond to the districts of Wales to which my hon. Friend has referred—that is to say, the agricultural districts, cases of coercion by landlords are comparatively rare—and for a very good reason. There is no necessity for it. The tenant, as a general rule, has, or thinks he has, the same interests as his landlord, and his political leanings, if he has any, are the same also. Therefore, he is ready to follow without being forced. But when you cross the borders of Wales you are met by an entirely different state of things. The landlord is very often an Englishman—the tenant is almost always a Welshman—the landlord almost always speaks English—the tenant always speaks Welsh—the landlord almost always goes to church— the tenant almost always goes to chapel. When you add to this that there is in those districts in Wales no middle class, such as there is in England, to break the sharpness of the fall between the great landlord-proprietor and the poor tenant-farmer, you have enough, I think, to account for a certain divergence in sympathies and interest which exists to a greater extent in Wales than in England, between the class which owns the soil and the class which cultivates it. But I will not pause to inquire into causes, I will take things as I find them. Of this I am sure, that while nine out of ten of the Welsh landlords are Conservatives, ninety-nine out of 100 of the Welsh farmers are Liberals. Now, there was a time when, strange to say, this anomalous state of things was without
1310
any practical effect whatever; for the tenants had for ages been brought up in the belief, sedulously impressed on them from their earliest years, that their vote was a sort of fealty, or service, which the vassal owed to his lord, and they would as soon have thought of withholding it from him as of refusing to pay their rent. I, myself, when a boy, have seen the tenants on the large estates in Wales driven up to the polling-booth like sheep to the slaughter-house. Nobody even went through the formality of canvassing them. They were told to vote in a particular way, and they did it as a matter of course. But, Sir, a change has come over the spirit of our institutions. These poor Welsh farmers, like the rest of the world, have been "educated," and when at the last election they were called upon to support a cause which was unspeakably dear to them, when they were called upon to rally round a great principle and a great man, they were guilty of the unpardonable crime of daring to think and act for themselves. And then came the struggle. Now, I am bound to say that in many places the great landowners yielded gracefully, if not willingly. They "accepted the inevitable." It is my duty and my pleasure to state that in the county which I have the honour to represent (the county of Denbigh)—and I believe the same thing may be said of one or two other counties of Wales—there occurred, as far as I am aware, during and after the last election, no such abuse of territorial power as that of which my hon. Friend has complained. But, can this be said of Wales generally? So far from its being the case, I venture to affirm—and I am surrounded by Gentlemen who can contradict me if I am wrong—that in Carnarvonshire, in Merionethshire, in Cardiganshire, a large proportion of the Liberal voters, at one or both of the two last General Elections, walked up to the polling-booth with the prospect of ruin staring them in the face. Sir, there is a Petition on the records of this House which speaks volumes on this subject. It was presented three years ago by a body of tenant-farmers in Merionethshire. It prayed the House either to give them the ballot, or to disfranchise them altogether. And upon what ground did they rest this remarkable prayer? Why, upon this, that to place them in a

1311
dilemma where they must either sacrifice their consciences or their livelihood —to drive them to elect between, their sense of duty and their daily bread—was a cruel mockery, and that a vote accompanied by so hard an alternative was a curse rather than a privilege. Well, that was how things stood in 1865. Have they got better? I say distinctly, that they have got worse. Let me read to the House a printed circular which the owner of one of the largest estates in Carnarvonshire—the Gwydir estates—thought fit to send by the hand of his agent to every one of his tenants on the eve of the last General Election. The gentleman to whom I allude is a nobleman, not unknown to fame—I find from Dod's Parliamentary Companion that he calls himself "the joint hereditary Great Chamberlain of England"—Lord Willoughby d' Eresby. On the 6th of November, 1868, the agent of this nobleman issued a printed circular to the tenants of the Gwydir estate. The original is in Welsh. I have it here, and if any hon. Gentleman thinks he can make anything of it, he is quite welcome to look at it. In the meantime I will read from a literal translation, to the fidelity of which I pledge myself—
"Grimsthorpe, Bourne, 6th November, 1868.
"Sir,—I understand that the Gwydir estate tenants have been strongly solicited to vote against Major Pennant at the coming Election, and that a private letter written by me to Capt. T. L. D. Jones-Parry has been distributed amongst them for the same purpose.
"I feel it necessary to explain that Lord Willoughby d' Eresby is a Conservative, and gives all his support to Mr. Pennant; therefore he does not consider it right that you should allow yourself to be led by others to vote against the interest of the estate upon which you live and the wishes of his Lordship.—I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
"R. A. WARREN."
Now, Sir, I am a very inexperienced Member of this House; but if this intimation, emanating as it purports to do from a Peer of the realm, is not a breach of the privilege of this House, I should much like to know what is. Well, I need hardly say that most of the tenants to whom the letter was addressed took the hint and voted for Mr. Pennant. But some—to their credit be it said— were bold enough to record their votes for my hon. Friend who sits next to me (Captain Parry). Now, mark what followed. Last Lady Day, about a dozen or more notices to quit were served on
1312
some of the tenants of the Gwydir estate. The great majority of the persons on whom such notices were served had voted for my hon. Friend. No doubt, in two or three instances the tenants had voted the other way, and, of course, an explanation was ready. It was said that these notices were part of a great scheme for the re-letting of the estates. I do not care to enter into that explanation. I prefer to rest my case, not upon equivocal acts, which may or may not admit of explanation, but on the written letter, which admits of no explanation; and I cannot but think that the whole proceeding is a striking illustration of the argument of the old philosopher, who said that he was driven to believe in a future state, because in this world men are only held accountable for what they write, and not for what they say. Well, Sir, I will read another letter written by another landlord to my hon. Friend himself, also on the eve of the last General Election, which is certainly more unguarded than that which I have read, but not on that account less honest. It is a reply to an application by my hon. Friend for the vote of the writer. The letter is as follows:—
"10th October, 1868.
"Dear Captain Parry,—Entertaining a very strong opinion that Mr. Gladstone's measure with reference to the Irish Church is simply one of unwarranted spoliation, and but the commencement of an attack upon all property, and, furthermore, will not have the effect of pacifying Ireland, for the priests have plainly told us they will be satisfied with nothing less than a repeal of the Union, you must excuse me voting for you, as you declare yourself a follower of that gentleman; and any tenant of mine who votes in his support I shall consider as hostile to the interests of the country generally, and shall act accordingly."
Now, Sir, I do maintain that to speak of freedom and purity of election in the face of such letters is sheer nonsense. However, my hon. Friend took what, I cannot but think, was a very proper course. He wrote back to say—
"As for your vote, you are, of course, at liberty to do with it as you please. But I shall make a point of watching your conduct towards your tenants, and if I find that they are made to suffer in any way for having voted for me, I shall act accordingly.'"
Sir, I need hardly say that this intimation had its desired effect, and that the excellent intentions of this gentleman were nipped in the bud. Well, Sir, I have given two instances. I might give

1313
twenty of the same sort of thing. Their name is legion. But I will not weary the House by repetition. I will confine myself to one more case, which is rather remarkable, because it shows how ingeniously this kind of oppression can be made to work, and what a length of arm and power of reach it possesses and commands. In one of the counties of North Wales there lives a freeholder, who, as he was the owner of his own farm, considered that he might enjoy the luxury of voting as he pleased, and accordingly announced his intention of voting for the Liberal candidate. But, unfortunately for him, he was a large dairy farmer, and was in the habit of churning his butter by water power, derived from a stream which ran at the foot of his farm. Now it so happened that this stream ran also through the property of a neighbouring landowner, who was a Conservative, and who had certain dominant rights over the stream. When the farmer was pressed by his powerful neighbour to vote for the Tory, he pointed with pride to his freehold, believed himself safe, and voted for the Liberal candidate. But he calculated without his host. They could not take away his land; but they could and did divert his water. But I am happy to tell the House that my friend was a man of resources, for like the hero in the ballad of "Chevy Chase"—
" When his legs were smitten off,
" He fought upon his stumps."
He defied the landowners. He took down his useless water wheel, and he churned his butter by hand. Now, Sir, I do not think there is any one in this House, or out of it, who can deny that these practices have prevailed, and if they cannot be denied, I do trust they will not be defended. It is very possible that, as my hon. Friend intimated, we may be met by what we used to call at school the tu quoque argument. It may be said that if there was intimidation on one side, there was intimidation, though of a different kind, on the other. Now, Sir, I am not here to defend any kind of intimidation. I dislike it, from whatever quarter it may come, and whatever garb it may assume. But I maintain that my hon. Friend has torn this accusation as to the chapel screw to shreds, for it is childish to compare the influence exercised by these poor Dissenting preachers, who are entirely de-
1314
pendent upon their flock for support—and do not own fifty acres of land among them—with the enormous power wielded by the Welsh territorial aristocracy. At the most it is a case of moral influence against brute force. Whether it be good taste to make the pulpit a platform for the discussion of political questions is a matter upon which different men may have different opinions. But if we come to that—were the pulpits of the Church of England silent during the last election? Why, when the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) went down to canvass South Lancashire he was preached at in half the churches in the county. ["No, no!"] Hon. Gentlemen cry "No, no!" but I am speaking of what I myself have heard and seen. I remember one clergyman who drew an elaborate comparison between the right hon. Gentleman and a variety of Scriptural characters, of whom the only one that can be mentioned in decent society is Judas Iscariot. But then it may be said—Why do not you prosecute these men before the ordinary legal tribunals? Now, I need hardly point out that that would be a very invidious task, and one which few, particularly in the case of a neighbour or friend, would be heroic enough to undertake. Besides, there is another difficulty. These gentlemen have good legal advisers at their back, and so generally manage to keep on the "windy side of the law;" and the best proof of this is that, though there have been several cases of prosecution for intimidation, there has been no case, or scarcely any case, where a conviction has been obtained. The fact is that in a criminal charge it is necessary to prove strictly the improper intention in each particular case; and I need hardly point out that this may be very difficult when, as in a court of law, you are confined to the single ease in hand, whereas it may be very easy if you are allowed to look, as we are here, to other cases. In fact, it is the old story of the bundle of sticks—take each case singly and you can break it to pieces—take them together, and the inference is irresistible. Well, but I suppose we shall be told— as we have been told for the last twenty years—that "there is a good time coming;" that the time is at hand when public opinion will decide these things for itself, and when no landlord will venture to resist its powerful influence. Sir,

1315
we have waited for that time—we have waited patiently—and we have waited long; but it seems to me that we are very much in the position of the man in the fable, who waited until the running stream should have run itself out—
"Rustious expectat dum defluat amnis, at ille
Labitur et labetur in omne volubilis œvum."
No, Sir, there is one remedy, and one remedy only for this state of things, and that is the Ballot; and I am proud to think that there is not a single Liberal Member in the House who represents the Principality of Wales who does not share in that opinion. Since I have sat in this House no more welcome intimation has reached my ears than the authoritative statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, made some months ago, that he was, if not actually a convert, in a fair way of becoming a convert to that measure; and if the sole result of this discussion be to assist in the process of that conversion it will not have been without its fruits. But while things remain as they are, do not at least refuse us that sympathy and support without which our condition would be simply intolerable. I have shown that there is one tribunal, and one tribunal only, to which we can appeal for protection, and that tribunal is the House of Commons. To that tribunal we confidently appeal, and we ask this House, in the exercise of its highest and most cherished functions, emphatically to condemn these unconstitutional—these cowardly practices; and to stamp them with the reprobation—I had almost said with the infamy—which they deserve. And now, Sir, I have only to thank the House, not in my own name only, but in the name of the poor men whose cause I have undertaken to plead, for the patient and indulgent hearing which it has given to their grievances; and I trust the day will never come when an elector, however poor and humble he may be, appealing to this House for protection in the exercise of his constitutional functions, will make that appeal in vain.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That, in the opinion of this House, the proceedings of certain landlords in Wales towards their tenants on account of the free exercise of the Franchise at Elections are oppressive and unconstitutional, and an infringement of the rights conferred by Parliament on the people of this country."—(Mr. Henry Richard.)
MR. LEATHAMsaid, he thought that his hon. Friend had performed an important public service in calling the attention of the House to what was taking place in Wales. For, at a moment when we were assured by writers of great eminence that intimidation was rapidly becoming extinct, and were urged on that account to refrain from insisting upon the only feasible remedy, facts like those adduced by his hon. Friend, which were wholly subversive of these comfortable premises, were a very valuable contribution to the discussion. He hoped, therefore, that the House would not consider that he was trespassing unduly upon their attention if he attempted to supplement the statements of his hon. Friend by others which had been brought to his special notice, and which would serve, he thought, to extend the area of Welsh intimidation beyond the limits within which his hon. Friend had shown it to exist. The observations of his hon. Friends had been confined almost entirely to instances of intimidation which they alleged to have occurred in the southern portion of the Principality. The instances to which he was about to refer would render, he feared, the other extremity of the Principality almost equally obnoxious to the suspicion that freedom of election had been seriously interfered with there. He held in his hand a letter which he had received from the Rev. Michael Daniel Jones, principal of the Independent College at Bala, in Merionethshire. He said—
"I have spent most of my life in Bala and its vicinity. In Merionethshire the land is divided chiefly into large estates, and there are two leading landlords in the county. One landlord has about 150 tenant-farmers under his control, more or less; and the other about 160, more or less. The farms vary in size from forty to sixty or 100 acres. Nine-tenths of the farmers are Dissenters and Liberals. From personal conversation with most of them, I know them to be Liberals from conviction. In the election of 1859 five tenants on the lesser estate voted with the Liberal candidate and were all ejected. Nine were neutral, and their rents were raised in every instance. I went into these cases of evictions personally with the tenants. On the other estate, out of thirty-five on the register, eleven only voted with the Tory candidates. Seven tenants who were neutral were singled out and had notice to quit—most of them were leading men in the chapels—and their farms were let chiefly to Church people. The farmers look at an election with dread in consequence of this terrorism. In the election of 1865 all the tenants on the two estates, with the exception of one, voted with the Tory candidate, and this turned the election."

1317
Sir, I had no intention of mentioning any names; but, as I see the hon. Baronet the Member for Denbighshire in his place, and as I am told that one of these estates belongs to him, perhaps he will tell us if there is any inaccuracy in this statement. Now, Sir, grievous as this intimidation was, and grievous as were its consequences, there was something which was more deplorable still, and that was the perfect moral obtuseness of those who exercised it. It never seemed to occur to one of those gentlemen that in giving these notices he was committing a crime against the State. It never seemed to occur to him that there was anything mean and dastardly in forcing the conscience of a man who was his political equal in the eye of the law, and who had duties to perform as sacred and imperative as any which his own conscience imposed upon him. To illustrate what he meant let him quote a case which occurred the other day, not in Wales, but in Scotland. One of the best and largest tenant-farmers in Scotland, a man who farmed 3,000 acres of arable land, as well as pasture, and who paid his various landlords £5,000 a year, received notice that his lease, which was about to expire in a year or two, would not be renewed. The notice was given immediately after the last election. The agent declares that the landlord specially instructed him to give no reasons for the notice. The tenant states that the agent exceeded his instructions, and told him that the notice was given in consequence of his vote; but in order to clear up any doubt upon this point, the landlord, who is a noble Marquess, has written to the papers a letter, from which he would, with the permission of the House, make a short extract—
"It is perfectly true," he writes, "that I had many reasons for not letting the farm of Timpoendean to Mr. Scott, but I should consider myself acting unfairly if I did not say at once that among them was the Tote he gave at the election, nor do I see why I should not make this admission."
Observe the exquisite naïveté of these last words! Now, he had no doubt that the Marquess of Lothian was an excellent and amiable man. He had no doubt that these Welsh landlords were excellent and amiable men. But the point to which he wished to draw the attention of the House was this—that men who were deservedly respected in all the other relations of life, men whom
1318
no one would accuse of general moral insensibility, were afflicted with a special alienation of conscience, an aberration or blindness of the moral sense, when they came to deal with the political rights of those whom the accident of territorial supremacy had placed within their power. And so it was that without, so far as he could see, one pang of remorse—nay, even with the smile of an approving conscience, as though the act were meritorious in itself—they consigned men, whose only offence was that they had dared to believe that they were free—men whose families had been centuries upon the estate, and who, in a part of the country where tenant-right does not exist, had spent their all upon the farm—they consigned these men to poverty with the same placid confidence in their own rectitude with which at petty sessions they consigned the poacher or any other offender against the law of God and man to gaol. We had abolished the feudal system in this country; but at no period, not even when the grip of feudalism was strongest, did it demand service at the hands of a vassal for his superior with a purpose more inexorable or a practice less merciful than those with which the tradition representing feudalism demanded political service now. And yet, although we were all aware of this, and although we were all ready to acknowledge that the vote was the voter's, and not the landlord's—that it was a strictly public, and not in any sense a private trust—we left the vote naked, absolutely at the mercy of the landlord; and upon what plea? That the public might see with their own eyes that the vote was given, not to the landlord, but to itself. See how our anxiety defeated itself. The vote was carried off under our eyes; it was carried off because it was left naked; and so long as it was left naked it would be carried off, because the lesson which our naked voting necessarily taught in a country where large classes of voters were in a state of dependence upon others was that the vote belonged, not to the voter, but to those whom they insisted should be present when the vote was given, and who had both the power and the will to claim it. And it was this power of claiming the vote and enforcing the claim which prevented the base tradition of political servitude from dying out. From one end of the Principality to the other this

1319
tradition was kept alive by occurrences like those to which they were calling attention to-night. And do not let the House be led away by the assertion that these notices were in the majority of instances a mere brutum fulmen; that only a small proportion of them would eventually be carried into effect. If you issued a hundred notices, as was done in Cardiganshire, it was not at all necessary, in order to produce a great moral effect, that you should proceed to eject every tenant whom you had served. An example here and there was quite enough to strike terror into all.
"The Emperor at Hayti," said Sydney Smith, "boasted that he had only cut off the heads of a couple of persons for disagreeable behaviour at his table. In spite of the paucity of visitors executed, the example was found to have operated as a considerable impediment to conversation."
Precisely in the same way, the spectacle of the ruin of a couple of tenants overawed a whole country, insured a fictitious unanimity, and paralyzed the public voice. Now, he was one of those who thought this was a great evil, and he rejoiced that his hon. Friend should have called the attention of the House and, through the House, of the country to the intimidation in Wales, not only because he could not but believe that when the eye of the nation was turned in displeasure upon these acts, those who perpetrated them might feel at least a spurious kind of shame; but because, believing, as he did, that there was only one remedy for this kind of intimidation, he was convinced that when these and other kindred facts were before the public, whatever might be the course pursued by that House, or whatever may be the remedy of the Government, there was no power, either in the House or in the Government, which could arrest for a single Session the irresistible conviction to which the nation must come.
MR. SCOURFIELDsaid, he wished to offer a few remarks on the question before the House; because, as he had been returned for a Welsh county (Pembrokeshire) at the last election without any opposition, he could approach the subject without any irritating recollections. He had been in Parliament for many years, and for many years had taken part in contested elections; and he found that the same feeling prevailed at the end of every one of them—namely, that those who voted on our own side acted
1320
from pure conviction, while those who voted against us were influenced by intimidation. With regard to the Principality, it was extremely satisfactory to learn that, though the influence of the landlords was so perniciously exercised, still the country possessed such an exceptional state of morality that when the Judges went down there they found an almost complete absence of crime. But he had remarked that at the end of every General Election a most active trade in martyrdom was going on. Persons who suffered attributed to persecution what had arisen from the ordinary transactions of life. He had heard of a person who was charged with having sent 200 notices to his tenants, in consequence of the way they had voted; but on inquiry it turned out that only sixteen had been served, and they were altogether unconnected with elections. In all these transactions there was the greatest publicity, and that was the best security against undue influence being exerted. It was very easy to say that these evictions were the result of political motives; but a good tenant was too valuable to be lightly parted with, and, moreover, a change of tenancy was very expensive to the landlord. He must remark that it was rather an unusual thing for an hon. Member to move a Resolution and attack several gentlemen by name without having given them the slightest notice beforehand. There was a Committee sitting above stairs, and if these cases were worth being brought forward why were they not brought before that Committee? ["They were."] Well, then, what was the necessity for bringing them before the House now? The names of gentlemen were published, and a great amount of odium was incurred, which the persons who suffered from it had no opportunity of wiping away. Was the House to have its time taken up by such proceedings? If so, it was contrary to the usual practice. There were many screws more powerful than evictions, because they could be put in force secretly; and the most effectual was that which took the form of money; persons were not only afraid that the debt would be claimed, but also that it should be known that they were in debt. That was a much more powerful screw to put on a man. With respect to what had been said about the Church, he would only

1321
observe that the sacred edifices had never been, and could not be used for political purposes; and, as far as his own experience went, the sermons from the pulpits of the Established Church in Wales had been remarkably free from reference to politics. It must be remembered that all these voters were free men; their votes were in their own power. The House must not be misled by mere metaphorical expressions, such as ''electors being driven to the poll." Taken literally, the thing was impossible; how could they be driven, unless it was in hackney coaches? Was a tenant who owed money to be kept on a farm simply because he had voted against the landlord, and some persons might attribute wrong motives to the landlord if the tenant received notice to quit? The alleged number of notices in one county was forty-six, and in the other twenty-six; but the whole body of voters numbered some thousands. In the ordinary course of things a certain number of notices would be given; so that, even if they accepted the version of the hon. Gentleman opposite, the actual extent of the intimidation was very limited. He supposed that, as the hon. Gentleman had discharged his conscience by bringing forward this Motion, he would not deem it necessary to press it to a division.
SIR WATKIN WYNNsaid, that he desired to make a brief personal explanation. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. G. O. Morgan) had admitted that at the last election nothing objectionable had been attempted upon his (Sir Watkin Wynn's) tenants in Denbighshire. But the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Leatham) had referred to something that took place, in Merionethshire, ten years ago. Now, his agent who managed all his affairs at that time was dead; but Mr. Michael Jones, his agent at the last election, had appeared before the Committee now sitting, and had given an explanation of the affair which, he believed, the Committee considered to be satisfactory. As the revival of this matter had taken him by surprise, he had had no opportunity of refreshing his memory, and was therefore unable, at the present moment, to enter more fully into details.
MR. RICHARDSsaid, that the facts which had been mentioned by the hon. Mover of the Resolution, were brought before the Committee in the presence of
1322
gentlemen connected with Cardiganshire and Carmarthenshire, who, if it had been possible, would have answered them. He believed that the attempt had been made, but it had utterly failed.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he wished to know whether the hon. Member was in Order in referring to the proceedings of a Committee now sitting?
MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Member was not in Order in making the remarks he had.
MR. RICHARDSsaid, he trusted the short time during which he had been honoured with a seat in the House would be a sufficient apology for his transgression of its rules, but if further excuse were wanting it could be found in the example set him by the hon. Baronet the Member for Denbighshire (Sir W. Wynn), whose offence was aggravated by the circumstance of long experience. It would have been well if the right hon. Baronet (Sir Stafford Northcote) had called that hon. Member to Order; the fact that he sat on the same side of the House with him was no excuse for not doing so. He could confirm the statement of the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Richard) that the notices in question were not served on the tenants in consequence of their being in arrear with their rent, but for political reasons. He might explain the cause of meetings having been held in places of worship during the contest in Cardiganshire. In two cases in the county in which halls could be had for public meetings, permission to use them for that purpose was positively refused by the authorities; the population was scattered, little accommodation of any kind was at command for the holding of meetings, and in some cases in which the only room to be had, the school-room, was found too small, an adjournment to the chapel was resolved on; but in no ease had chapels been used in Cardiganshire for election meetings except from necessity. Englishmen prided themselves on the administration of public justice in their country; but what could be said of terrorism in election contests being exercised not only by agents but by magistrates as such? He held in his hand an attested document, certifying that Mr. Bonsall, a magistrate, had canvassed a voter of Cardiganshire, named John James, in behalf of the Conservative candidate, and when he said he had promised to vote for Mr.

1323
Richards, told him it would be better for him to vote for Mr. Vaughan, because he would be sure to find himself some day at petty sessions. It was all very well for the hon. Member for Pembrokeshire to deprecate bringing such matters before the House, but what other or more constitutional means were at command for making them public? He believed, indeed, the discussion would have a good effect, and do much to discourage terrorism in Wales.
COLONEL STEPNEYsaid, that as a Welsh representative, he must bear testimony to the accuracy of the statements made with respect to what took place in Carmarthenshire during the late General Election. He hoped that a state of things most damaging to the Principality would soon be remedied by the introduction of the Ballot, or some other means of protecting the electors against the tyranny of landlords.
MR. C. WYNNsaid, that as he had been twice elected for Montgomeryshire without opposition, he conceived he had a right to complain on behalf of the Welsh Conservative Members of the manner in which this question has been brought forward. When grave personal charges were to be brought against Members, it it was usual, it was courteous, and it was only just, to furnish them with a sort of catalogue of the charges they were expected to answer. The hon. Members for Merthyr and Denbighshire (Mr. Richard, and Mr. G. O. Morgan) had not condescended to do that. Grave charges had been brought against landlords, who, by the fortune of war, had no one in the House to speak for them; but if they had received fair notice they would, no doubt, have supplied some Welsh Conservative Members with information bearing on the charges made. It had been asked what was to become of the Liberal cause if these practices were to obtain; his answer was that if the Liberal cause could be maintained only by such methods as this it had better be given up. He did not undervalue the great claims which the Liberal cause had upon the country at large; but by such unworthy methods as this it would be neither advanced nor maintained. It had been remarked how singularly peaceful and free from assault, even under the greatest provocation, these Welshmen were. As the man of peace revenged himself on his
1324
adversary by saying to the crowd—"Don't nail his ears to the pump; don't duck him," so the expressions used now would be treasured up by an excitable people, and remembered at any future election, and upon the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Richard) would rest the responsibility. He believed that bare justice had been done by the statement that not a case of violence occurred at a Welsh borough or county election. It was said that nine out of ten of the Welsh landlords were Conservative Churchmen, and that the tenantry were nearly in the same proportion Liberal Nonconformists. He believed these were exaggerations, but if they were not the hon. Member for Merthyr was only putting into the hands of Welsh landlords a weapon they were too just and wise to use. But a landlord might go to his tenant and say—"My friend, we are told by authority which you recognize that our interests are antagonistic. Now, I am not turning you out for any expression of opinion at the last election; I am not turning you out for your religion; but it appears to me it is monstrous, after what has been said, that I should put weapons into the hands of my enemies; and it is obviously better for me that my farm should be in the hands of some one whose interests are identical with my own." ["Oh, oh!"] He did not say he should approve of that course; but he said it might arise from the hon. Gentleman's language. It might be that before long the country would have the Ballot. What would be the consequence? If Churchmen were invariably and consistently Conservative, surely the obvious course for any Conservative landlord was to let his farms to none but Churchmen. It was not for him to say whether the hon. Member for Merthyr was doing his friends a service by putting the issue in this way, and it was doubtful whether the hon. Member would do any good to the Liberal cause. He would say to the hon. Members opposite, or rather those who had supplied them with information that he believed in their decalogue as well as in other people's there was a ninth commandment.
SIR THOMAS LLOYDsaid, he was one of the four Whig landlords of Cardiganshire; but he had told his own tenants who wished to support the Tory

1325
candidates that they were perfectly at liberty to vote as they pleased. The same thing had taken place on his Carmarthenshire property. Considerable difference of opinion existed as to the rights of the landlord. Some of his friends said the vote belonged to the landlord, and that the tenant was only an incident in the matter. But he objected to that doctrine; first, because it was unconstitutional; and secondly, because it was inimical to the interests of the order to which he belonged. A landlord who compelled his tenant to vote contrary to his own wishes made himself a party to the violation of the law, which declared that the vote should be given unconditionally. He thought that the conduct complained of was very impolitic indeed. It was probable that the roaring tide of Liberalism was about to sweep over the country; and it seemed to him that it was only by bringing the different classes of society more closely together, and by each exercising mutual forbearance and kindness towards the others, that the changes, permanent, and not temporary in their character, that were now being effected could be made to work advantageously for the common benefit. Many of the people of Wales dreaded the coming 29th of September; but this debate would not have been in vain if it resulted in the restoration of a more cordial relationship between the landlord and tenant in that part of the country. If landlord united with tenant, and manufacturer with artizan, they need not fear that the landlord and manufacturer would lack their legitimate influence.
MR. BRUCEsaid, that when his hon. Friend (Mr. Richard) first placed the Notice of his Motion upon the Paper, he thought it was a premature one, considering that there was, at this moment, a Select Committee employed upstairs in the consideration of proceedings at elections; but he felt bound to acknowledge, after having heard the powerful speech of his hon. Friend, and having listened to the painful nature of the facts he had adduced, that his hon. Friend, in his desire to further the interests of those whom he desired to serve, and to vindicate the position and character of those with whom he had long lived in terms of intimate friendship, could scarcely have done otherwise than bring these cases of hardship before the House. His hon. Friend had undertaken to prove,
1326
and he believed had proved, that the Welsh farmers who, perhaps, of all others, were the most kindly disposed towards their landlords, a warm-hearted people, who, as he knew from experience, had never, except with extreme regret, found themselves opposed to their landlords, had been not only subjected, because they had acted as they believed to be right—to injury and loss, but that this had been done in the most open manner, and in the most flagrant violation of all that was considered fair, just, and honourable between man and man. The hon. Member for Pembrokeshire (Mr. Scourfield), with Ms usual ingenuity, had endeavoured to cast his shield over the landlords. No doubt many of the injuries anticipated by voters were anticipated without cause; but his hon. Friend had quoted letters and given names and circumstances in a manner that went far to prove the accuracy of his statements; and he could not, therefore join with those who censured his hon. Friend for not giving a notice which, in fact, it was impossible for him to give. His hon. Friend would, no doubt, have given due notice had he made an attack upon any Member of that House, but he had made no such attack. And, further, he had simply laid before the House facts that had already at different times appeared in the newspapers in Wales, and the answer to which could have been easily given if they admitted of any reply. He (Mr. Bruce) had no doubt that the accusing conscience of every landlord who had been guilty of these actions had told him since the Notice appeared, that he was the party whose conduct would be brought before the House; and any landlord whose conduct had already been publicly condemned might, if he had pleased, have communicated the facts of the case to any Member of his party in that House, and thus have presented any explanation in his power. He thought that the hon. Member had done nothing less than his duty in bringing forward the subject; and if no defence had been attempted, he believed it was simply because such conduct was indefensible. His hon. Friend had, however, not given notice of the terms of his Motion, and, under those circumstances, he trusted that his hon. Friend, who had gained such just distinction by the powerful and remarkable speech he had made, would not be inclined to gain

1327
what might seem an unfair advantage by pressing his Motion, but that he would be satisfied with the result he had already obtained.
MR. O'REILLY-DEASEsaid, that some years ago he stood a contest for a county in Wales having a constituency of 5,000, and he really believed that 2,000 of them would have voted for a broomstick had it been recommended by the landlords. He was of opinion that the remedy for the state of things which had been the subject of complaint that evening was a just and equitable land law protecting the interests of the tenant-farmer, and granting him that security for his property which was now accorded to the landlord. If such a remedy were provided, he believed that the Ballot would be totally unnecessary. He would give the Motion his hearty support if it were pressed to a division.
COLONEL CORBETTsaid, he would be the last person to justify the putting of pressure upon any voter; but he thought it would have been more in accordance with fair dealing between man and man to defer bringing this subject forward until the Committee up-stairs had reported. He presumed there must be some reason for not waiting until the Committee had made their Report. An old adage stated that if you threw plenty of mud some of it would be sure to stick. Perhaps it was intended in this case that some mud should stick pending the inquiry by the Committee. It would appear as if there must be some other feeling besides a political one in the Welsh Elections, or why should the present Member for Merthyr (Mr. Richard) have been preferred to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who was quite as advanced a Liberal as that hon. Gentleman? The expressions about the same measure being meted out to certain persons as the measure which they themselves meted out might have had reference to the attack made on the Irish Church. It had been said that Liberalism was passing through Wales like a roaring tide. When he heard that expression it reminded him of another kind of roaring—of "a ramping and a roaring lion walking about, seeking whom he might devour." Spiritual terrorism had, in many cases, been exercised towards the voters. He had heard reports, on what he believed to be good authority, of very
1328
strong denunciations by the ministers of different sects in the Principality. As soon as a landlord gave notice to quit he had done his worst—he could do no more; but the case was different with ministers, who told the members of their congregation they would endanger their salvation if they did not vote in a particular way. Nor was that the only coercion that had been employed. He would mention one fact which had been brought under his notice. A small tradesman in a certain town in Merionethshire had a mortgage on his little property, and a man of some importance on the other side told him that if he did not vote in a certain way the mortgage would be called up. Again, he said that he had no wish to encourage oppression or undue influence, but there ought to be no hypocrisy in these matters, and those who lived in glass houses should not throw stones.
MR. WHALLEYsaid, he thought the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Richard) had done good service by bringing this subject forward. A good reason for not deferring it till the Committee had reported was this—that the scope of the Committee's inquiry was a general one, extending to the whole country; while the case of Wales was peculiar to the Principality. Long ago the pressure brought to bear upon voters in boroughs of Montgomeryshire was so intolerable that in 1852 a Petition was presented, embodying substantially the statements which had been brought forward on the present occasion. The petitioners complained of habitual and systematic terrorism, and stated that it would be a relief to the people of those boroughs to be deprived of the franchise.
VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, he wished to say a few words on this subject, on which he was very sensitive, because he held a double position, as one connected with land, and as representative of a large commercial constituency (Liverpool). When it was seen that not a single county election had been vitiated for corruption or intimidation, he thought that hon. Gentlemen opposite ought to do justice to the landed interest in this respect. He was anxious that there should be no stain either upon town or county, but the great cause of electoral purity was not advanced by these partizan attacks upon either. This was an attack upon the country, and he heard with some regret the Secretary of State

1329
for the Home Department speak as though the statements made by those sitting behind him were established facts. Now these statements had not been sifted by any competent tribunal. All the complaints of coercion which he (Viscount Sandon) had heard of in Staffordshire were made against the Liberal party, but he had always doubted the truth of these statements because they had not been sifted; and the House had a right to demand that a Minister of the Crown should not admit as true charges, which were first made in the columns of a newspaper and then repeated from the Benches behind him.
MR. RICHARDsaid, after the appeal made to him by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, he should not press his Motion to a division, but he wished to correct one or two misapprehensions. He had not made, or intended to make, an attack upon any hon. Member of the House. It had been complained that the Notice he had given had not been sufficiently long. Now, he put his Notice on the Paper some six or seven weeks ago, and he had, from time to time, postponed it for the purpose of enabling hon. Gentlemen opposite to make inquiries and prepare themselves to rebut the charges. One of his reasons for not dividing was that he did not desire to identify hon. Members opposite with the doings he had described. He was sorry that to a great extent they had done this of their own accord.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

INDIA—EAST INDIA (HOME ACCOUNTS).

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEmoved that the Home Accounts of the Government of India be referred to the Committee of Public Accounts.
  MR. GRANT DUFFsaid, that far from objecting to his right hon. Friend's Motion he was most happy to accede to it. It did not, under all the circumstances, seem quite proper that they should take the initiative in again this year referring these accounts to a Committee upstairs; but there was no reason in the world why they should not be so referred, if one so able to form a sound opinion as his right hon. Friend thought fit to propose that they should be.
  Motion agreed to.
  Home Accounts of the Government of India [presented 10th May], referred to the Committee of Public Accounts.—(Sir Stafford Northcote.)

COVENTRY ELECTION.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he rose to call attention to the statements contained in a Petition [presented 10th June], touching the recent inquiry into the last Election for the City of Coventry. He had no desire to enter into the merits of the trial of the Election Petition, or to throw any doubt upon the decision of the learned Judge. The point he wished to submit was of a totally different character. He would contend that by its rules this House was bound to see that justice was not evaded in Election Inquiries before Judges by the witnesses being tampered with or conveyed away from the place of examination. At the beginning of the present Session certain Resolutions were passed, the effect of which was that, if it should appear that any person had been elected or endeavoured to procure his election by bribery or other improper practices, this House would proceed with the utmost severity against all persons wilfully concerned in such bribery or corrupt practices; and if it appeared that any person had been tampering with witnesses in respect of the evidence to be given to this House, it should be accounted a high crime and misdemeanour, and this House would proceed with the utmost severity against the offender. Now, the Judge in an Election Inquiry was an officer of the House. He reported his finding to the House, and the evidence taken by him during the inquiry was laid on the table of the House. This Standing Order, therefore, entailed upon the House the necessity of vindicating its own law and privileges, if they had been infringed by any tampering with witnesses. It appeared before the trial that a portion of the case against the sitting Members for Coventry arose from certain alleged payments for travelling expenses, and if these sums could be proved to be paid by agents of the sitting Members, those payments would have been corrupt payments under the Act and the Members would have been unseated. Two witnesses swore that they had received payments of money for coming from a distance to vote for the sitting Members, and that these payments had been made

  1331
  to them by a person named John Moore. The question was, was he the agent of the sitting Members? But at the inquiry before the Judge John Moore was not to be found. It was felt on the part of sitting Members that unless he were somehow accounted for there would be a presumption against them. Therefore, when they had to open their case in defence, they produced two witnesses, who swore that John Moore had had nothing to do with the election, and was in no way connected with the sitting Members. A Mr. Seymour, who was admittedly the attorney for the sitting Members, swore distinctly that he knew nothing about Moore, and that the sitting Members could be in no way responsible for his actions. Another man, named William Dickenson, also swore that Moore took no part in the election. This was what Dickenson, who was the manager of a certain ward in Coventry, and who was admitted by the sitting Members to be an agent of theirs, said. He was asked by the counsel for the sitting Members, "Do you know anything of a man of the name of Moore?" His reply was, "I know him." "Had he anything to do with the election?" Dickenson answered, "Not to my knowledge." "Did you give him any directions or authority of any sort?" "No," replied Dickenson. In point of fact, therefore, Dickenson repudiated all connection with Moore in regard to the election. But what was the real truth? He was informed and prepared to prove that this very man had been hand in glove with Dickenson, who constantly employed him during the election in making payments to voters. Three days before the Election Inquiry commenced he induced Moore to go to a village some miles away from Coventry. Afterwards he brought him back again to Coventry one evening during the very time the Election Inquiry was pending, and took him to an inn, where, according to Moore's statement, he had personal communication with the professional agent of the sitting Members. After remaining a short time in the public-house Moore was conveyed to Nuneaton, where he was kept close until the Election Inquiry had terminated, and Dickenson visited him during his concealment. If Moore had been produced during that inquiry it is probable that the judgment pronounced by Mr. Justice Willes would have been different from what it actually was. Judgment was given in favour of
  1332
  the sitting Members, and that, of course, was a matter which could not be re-tried. What, however, was the House to do in a case like the present? It had passed Resolutions to the effect that it was a high crime and misdemeanour to hinder any witness from giving evidence before the House or a Committee thereof. Was this to be regarded as a mere brutum fulmen? If the House was not prepared upon proof of such facts as he had stated to vindicate their own law by punishing those who had contravened it, it would be far better to repeal the Order in question. He apprehended, however, that the proper course would be to ascertain the facts, and, on their being clearly established, to punish the man proved to be offending either by Order of the House, or by instructing the Attorney General to prosecute him in due course of law. The petitioners had, in his opinion, a right to demand of the House that it should vindicate its own character by instituting an inquiry into the, alleged facts. In conclusion, he begged to move for the appointment of a Select Committee.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the allegations of the Petition of Charles Flint and others [presented 10th June], respecting the late inquiry into the Election of Members for the City of Coventry, and to report their opinion as to what proceedings, if any, should be taken thereon."—(Mr. Bouverie.)
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that when he saw the Notice placed on the Paper by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Bouverie) he carefully read the Petition, and he confessed he was greatly puzzled, as it was almost impossible to make anything of it in consequence of all the names being left out or indicated by asterisks. He took the trouble, however, to read all the Papers on the subject, and he did not dispute in the main the accuracy of the statement just made to the House by his right hon. Friend. Two witnesses, it appeared, swore that Moore had in one case promised and in another case paid £2 10 s. to a voter for travelling expenses from London and back. But, on the other hand, it appeared that Moore was in Coventry up to the eve of the election, that he was well known to everybody, that he was not subpoenaed, and that his name was not upon the list of agents which was submitted by the petitioners to the

  1333
  Judge. Indeed, it did not appear that they made any search for him. [Mr. BOUVERIE: They endeavoured to subpoena him.] He did not know how that might be, but there was, at all events, no evidence on the face of the documents to show that they tried to subpoena him at all. At the inquiry the counsel for the petitioners made no effort to cross-examine Dickenson as to his acquaintance with Moore, neither was anything done by either party to secure the attendance of Moore. Now, whatever course was adopted in reference to this Petition, it was quite clear that no step could be taken which would affect the seats of the sitting Members. The House was, therefore, asked to do what it might be called upon to do in every case of bribery from which an important witness happened to be absent. If the House acceded to the prayer of the Petition, it would simply involve itself in inquiries which it was supposed it would have nothing further to do with after these questions had been transferred to the Judges. Supposing it to be true that the agents of the sitting Members had conspired to remove Moore from Coventry they might be indicted for conspiracy; and, on the other hand, if it were true that William Dickenson made false statements he might be indicted for perjury. It would not, however, be expedient to call these persons before a Committee of that House, there to give evidence not upon oath respecting what had occurred, in order that that evidence might be used if a charge were subsequently brought against any of them. Every lawyer would say that that would be a most unjust and unfair proceeding, because witnesses before a Committee might be subjected to greater pressure than could be put upon them in a court of justice. It might indeed be said that the witnesses would not be bound to criminate themselves, but supposing they were to hold their tongues altogether, what an absurd and ridiculous position the Committee would be placed in. In that event the Committee would elicit nothing except the statement of a man who, it appeared from his own account, had been a briber on behalf of some agents of the sitting Members, who had gone out of the way in order not to be examined, and who had now placed himself at the disposal of certain other
  1334
  parties in order to give evidence in their behalf. He was in no way vindicating the conduct of a person who withdrew a witness from an inquiry; but he was decidedly of opinion that the House ought not to interfere in a case of this description, as it had transferred its jurisdiction in these matters to a judicial tribunal. An indictment might be preferred either for conspiracy or perjury, and in his opinion one of these courses would be the proper one to adopt.
  MR. DENMANsaid, there was much force in the observations of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gathorne Hardy), but he did not think they entirely disposed of the Motion. The right hon. Gentleman's observations showed that since the Act of last Session the House had less power than it had before to deal with individuals who were charged with such a gross case as the present of tampering with witnesses. Formerly no lapse of time would have prevented the House from bringing an individual guilty of such offences before the Bar of the House, and of punishing him severely. But the power of the new courts ceased with their sittings, and there was no further power to deal with offenders. He thought, therefore, his right hon. Friend had hit a blot in the new legislation, and when the question came again before the House, as it soon must, he hoped this defect would be remedied.
  MR. BOUVERIE MR. BOUVERIE, in reply, said, the offence in question was a distinct offence against that House; and if no notice was to be taken of such offences, the House had better repeal its Sessional Orders, which would in future be a mere dead letter.
  Question put, and negatived.

POOR LAW (REMOVAL OF CHILDREN).

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. T. CHAMBERSrose, according to Notice, to call attention to the recent Correspondence between the Poor Law Board and the Guardians of the Poor of the parish of Marylebone; and to move—
  "That in any case where a Board of Guardians of any parish or union shall have made due provision within the workhouse or district school for the instruction in their own faith of children not of the Established Church, their religious rights being amply secured and the spirit of the law

  1335
  effectually carried out, it is inexpedient that the Poor Law Board should exercise its discretionary power to enforce the removal of such children to schools not under the control of the Guardians or of the parish authorities."
  The hon. and learned Member traced the course of the controversy which had arisen in that case, from which it appeared that a Roman Catholic priest had applied to the Guardians for facilities for giving religious instruction at regular stated times to certain Roman Catholic children under the care of the parochial authorities. Those children were at the schools at Southall connected with the parish of St. Marylebone, and almost everything that the Roman Catholic priest (the Rev. Mr. Wincott) had claimed in the matter had been granted. He was allowed free access to the children to instruct them, and the children were also regularly taken to a Roman Catholic place of worship on Sundays and on days of obligation; and he believed the priest was perfectly satisfied. Notwithstanding that, the removal of the children from the school at Southall to a certified Roman Catholic school at North Hyde was demanded; and the Guardians held that there was no reason for such removal, and that such a proceeding would be inexpedient. The Guardians had an interview with the President of the Poor Law Board on the subject; and after some considerable delay the Assistant Secretary of that Board wrote to the Guardians that it would be acting in contravention of the spirit of an Act of Parliament if it refused to entertain the application for the removal of the children. In their reply the Guardians stated that the children had long been receiving instruction in their own religion, and had been regularly attending their own place of worship. By the Act of 30 & 31 Vict, it was provided that a creed register should be kept in every workhouse and workhouse school, in which the creed of the child should be entered, and supposing any dispute were to arise as to the correctness of the register the Poor Law Board was to decide. Then the Act went on to provide that the minister of the religion to which the child belonged might according to the rules visit and instruct any inmate, unless he was above fourteen years and objected to receive such religious instruction. The Act further provided that any inmate for whom a religious service of his own
  1336
  creed was not provided in the workhouse should be allowed to attend a place of worship of his own creed outside the workhouse. At the time when these provisions were made there was a power vested in the Poor Law Board to remove a child for whose religious instruction no provision was made in the workhouse to a certified school of the religion of the child, and therefore it must be taken that when, the Legislature made these elaborate provisions it was for the express purpose that the Poor Law Board should no longer exercise the discretionary power which they possessed under the Act of 1866. Now, in the metropolitan district there were 2,000 Roman Catholic children dependent on the public rates, and if there was a removal of those children in the case of Marylebone there must be also in the case of the rest of the metropolis, and, in fact, all over the country. In the metropolis the increase in the annual expenditure would be upwards of £8,000, and what it would be for the whole country he could not tell. Then let hon. Members consider what the effect would be on the parochial system. It would be entirely subverted, for the principle of that system was that the Guardians were in loco parentis to the children who were placed in their charge; and if persons who did not belong to the Established Church went to the Poor Law Board behind the backs of the Guardians and claimed the removal of those children, it was not the Roman Catholics alone, but the Wesleyans, Baptists, and other sects that might make a similar demand. The evidence taken before the School Committee at Marylebone Workhouse last May with reference to these children, showed that, in the case of the first, the boy said the Roman Catholic priest had told him that he was a Catholic, upon which he said, ''I don't think I am," and that the priest told him to worship idols; and with reference to his early education, he said he had lived with his grandmother, with whom he went to a church. The evidence in the case of three other boys was similar in effect; but one of the boys said he had attended a Roman Catholic school for a short time and was removed by his father because they "whacked him." In the case of the fifth boy, it appeared that he had been to a Roman Catholic school and to a Roman Catholic church with his relatives. The evidence respecting the

  1337
  girl Elizabeth Marks showed that she was clearly never a Roman Catholic. The charge therefore that these children were known to be Roman Catholics and were brought up as Protestants totally failed when tested by the evidence. Dr. Manning was the last man in the world to complain of proselytism. No one was a more bitter opponent than he of the Church in which he was brought up, and no man had done more to degrade and injure it, and to draw away those who belonged to it to Popery. He was the last man to come to Parliament with a grievance about people changing their religion. There was no grievance to be redressed, but there were the rights of the parish to be maintained. Dr. Manning said there were 10,000 Catholic children in London, receiving no education, to be gathered in. Why did he not gather them in from the gutters, whence they issued to increase the crime and pauperism of the metropolis, instead of bearding the Guardians and beseeching the Poor Law Board to take children from one of the best of parochial day schools where the Catholic children were instructed by one of his own priests? Dr. Manning spoke of "a flagrant violation of statute law;" his own signature to public documents and his own archiepiscopal title were flagrant violations of statute law, as was also the multiplication of monastic institutions in this country. The Roman Catholics were the last persons to claim the equity of the law, because they least observed its letter and most openly infringed it. What other denomination went to the Poor Law Board and attacked the Guardians? Did the Baptists, Wesleyans, or Congregationalists? None of them. Only the Roman Catholics did so, and they did it on the principle on which they had sought to destroy the Queen's Colleges in Ireland—that of thwarting the policy of Parliament which was to endeavour by assuaging religious animosities to fuse all classes into one by educating children of various communions in mixed schools. The hon. and learned Member concluded by moving the Resolution.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, that the warmth of the hon. and learned Member rendered it desirable that he should interpose between him and those Roman Catholic Members who would no doubt reply to him. In view of the serious-
  1338
  ness of the subject, anything like sectarian bitterness should be avoided, and it would be better to exclude the particular history of Archbishop Manning from the discussion. The question was how orphan and deserted children were to be dealt with under existing Acts of Parliament, and, further, what was to be done with Roman Catholic children in particular? But other denominations had come to the Poor Law Board also, and desired their children to be removed from the workhouses to schools of their own denomination. The Jews had taken precisely the same course as the Roman Catholics had taken. The hon. and learned Member gave no prominence to the fact that the Act of 1868 which provided for the religious instruction of children within workhouses, gave further powers to the Poor Law Board to exercise its discretion in removing the children of Roman Catholics and others from workhouses to certified schools. The argument used by the hon. Member was that the Act of 1866, giving the power of removal, had been practically superseded by the legislation of 1868; but the Act of 1868 extended that power to orphans, deserted children, and illegitimate children, with the important modification that the removal might be made on the application of others besides parents and god-parents. Therefore, the Act of 1866 did not supersede previous legislation, but the power of priests and ministers of other denominations to visit co-existed with the power of removal. That was a very large power to give to the Poor Law Board, but it was given with the intention that the children should be removed to these certified schools when they were prepared to take them upon the application of those most interested in them. In the case of the day schools they had the Conscience Clause, but it must be remembered that workhouse schools were not day schools, and it was almost impossible to carry out the principle of a Conscience Clause, when there was no home influence behind, and when they had to deal with the fact that the workhouse or district schools were the actual homes of these children? His hon. Friend said that the guardians stood in loco parentis to these children, but it was an extremely delicate and difficult matter when they had to deal with the case of Protestant

  1339
  Guardians standing in loco parentis to Catholic children. In the case of a ward in Chancery the child was always carefully brought up in the religion of its parents. This principle was clearly laid down by the law as the one to be followed where it was possible, and it was the principle upon which the Poor Law Board always acted where they had the power. His hon. Friend had referred to meetings where statements without foundation had been received with cheering, but other meetings had also been held at which statements equally unfounded, in an opposite direction, had been similarly received. The position was this—Subsequent to the legislation of 1866 various religious denominations, the Roman Catholics among the number, thought they would establish schools for the reception of pauper and other children. Of these schools there were four or five certified by the Poor Law Board as fit for the reception of pauper children; and now that these schools had been established by the Roman Catholics and by the Jews—for that body had also taken advantage of the permission granted by the Legislature—was the House of Commons to come forward and reverse the policy which they had adopted, and to say to the schools now being established that the children were not to be sent there. When he had first been appointed to his present Office he had had a careful and accurate Report prepared upon these schools. His hon. Friend had said that these schools were more costly, and that the cost was as 6s. against 4s. 4½d. —the cost in the workhouse school. But the latter amount did not include education or general charges, it was for food and clothing alone, and it would be seen by an inquiry into the expenses of the different Unions, that 6s. per head was in reality a very low figure, and that in most cases the expense was far in advance of that sum, which did not represent any profit to the Roman Catholics. He thought, therefore, that in a pecuniary point of view his hon. Friend had failed to make out his case. The discretion lodged in the hands of the Poor Law Board was never intended to enable that body to over-rule the principle laid down by the Legislature; and it was impossible to contend that at such an early age the religious principles of a child could be as well maintained by the biweekly visits of a priest as they would be
  1340
  by the child being placed among its coreligionists. Would his hon. Friend be satisfied to see a child of his own of the age of twelve years placed amongst Roman Catholics only receiving a visit from a Church of England clergyman twice a week? His duty seemed clear and precise. It was one of impartiality as between the different religious denominations. In matters of religion the authorities of the Poor Law Board ought to act towards deserted children as the Court of Chancery would act if these children were its wards.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, it appeared to him that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board would prevent children from exercising that which the law gave them—a voice in the choice of their religion.
  MR. GOSCHENbegged the hon. Gentleman's pardon. He had been referring to the case of children under the age of fourteen years.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone had referred to the case of other children.
  MR. T. CHAMBERSsaid, he had gone into the case of the children in question to show what the facts were.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, there was no earthly doubt that the law gave the right hon. Gentleman the power to remove these children to certified schools. Dr. Manning meant to make profit out of the rates by speculation in these schools, and the right hon. Gentleman was going to accord with this design. The party which practised proselytism came to the House with an appeal ad misericordiam, although they were always ready to assault their neighbours, fie should be prepared, on another occasion, to state the reasons why he doubted whether there was any impartiality in the dealings of the Government in this matter.
  MR. SYNANsaid, he must defend Archbishop Manning and the Catholic body from the imputations of the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone (Mr. T. Chambers). He could understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman had to consult the wishes of a portion of his constituents in adopting the line taken by him that night. All the Roman Catholics wanted in this matter was justice. The Guardians had proselytized these children for four years, and then alleged that the children were four-

  1341
  teen years old. Unless the Poor Law Board exercised its power these Catholic children would have no protection; and he denied that in Spain, or Italy, or any other country there was a more flagrant case than that of these five children.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, that in other Protestant countries children brought up at the public cost were invariably brought up in the religion of the State. The Government ought not to recognize the pretensions of the Roman Catholic hierarchy in this instance.
  Motion made, and Question put,
  "That in any case where a board of guardians or any parish or union shall have made due provision within the workhouse or district school for the instruction in their own faith of children not of the Established Church, their religious rights being amply secured and the spirit of the law effectually carried out, it is inexpedient that the Poor Law Board should exercise its discretionary power to enforce the removal of such children to schools not under the control of the guardians or of the parish authorities."— (Mr. Thomas Chambers.)
  The House divided:—Ayes 29; Noes 71: Majority 42.

  ELECTRIC TELEGRAPHS BILL.
  Resolutions reported, and agreed to:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. DODSON, The Marquess of HARTINGTON, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and Mr. AYRTON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 197.]

  METROPOLITAN BUILDING ACT (1855) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN, Bill to amend the Metropolitan Building Act, 1855, ordered to be brought in by Mr. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN and Mr. Secretary BRUCE.
  JAMAICA LOANS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. STANSFELD, Bill to provide for the better liquidation of certain Loans raised under the guarantee of Her Majesty for the Service of the Colony of Jamaica, ordered to be brought in by Mr. STANSFELD and Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND) AMENDMENT (NO. 2) BILL.
  Select Committee nominated as follows:—Mr. WILLIAM GREGORY, Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, Sir JAMES STRONGE, Viscount CRICH-TON, Mr. COGAN, Mr. O'REILLY-DEASE, Mr. HENRY HERBERT, Mr. EDWARD WINGFIELD VER-NER, Mr. FORDE, Mr. KAVANAGH, Marquess of HAMILTON, Mr. BLAKE, and Lord CLAUD HAMILTON:—Five to be the quorum.
  House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock.