Commons Sitting of 17 July 1878

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Contagious Diseases (Animals) [Salaries, Compensations, &c.]
Second Reading—Metropolitan Board of Works (Money) * [251].
Committee—Contagious Diseases (Animals) [204]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Police Expenses Act Continuance * [256]; Corrib (Galway) River (recomm.) * [225–265].
Considered as amended—Drainage and Improvement of Land (Ireland) * [227].
Withdrawn—Irish Peerage * [78],

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) [SALARIES, COMPENSATIONS, &c.]
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That it is expedient to authorize the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of Salaries and Allowances of Officers and persons acting in the Veterinary Department

  1687
  of Her Majesty's Privy Council Office; and of the Charges and Expenses incurred in the maintenance and management of that Department; also to authorize the payment of Compensations, whether out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, or otherwise, which may become payable under the provisions of any Act of the present Session for making better provision respecting Contagious and Infectious Diseases of Cattle and other Animals.
  Resolution to be reported.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, ''That the Report be received To-morrow."—(Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
  MR. W. E. FORSTERasked, whether it was the intention of the Government to take this Bill to-morrow? His reason for making the inquiry was that there was a difference of opinion. So far as he was concerned, he understood that the Education Estimates were coming on to-morrow, and he begged to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if that were so?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the right hon. Gentleman was quite right in his supposition. They did fix the discussion of the Education Estimates for to-morrow, and it would be very desirable to take them then. That arrangement was made with the anticipation that the discussion on the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill, which was to begin yesterday and to be continued to-day, might be continued in such a manner as to arrive at a reasonable result and enable them to suspend the proceedings for Thursday, to take the Education Estimates and finish the Committee, as he had hoped, on Friday. But if they were to have a repetition of the sort of discussion—["Oh!"]—which they had last night—he, for one, would not say anything as to the character of that discussion, which might be very proper—but if they were to have a repetition of it, he did not see any probability of their being able to keep to their programme. In that case, he should be obliged to proceed with the Bill de die in diem.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEbegged to move the adjournment of the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must be aware that the victory which was gained over the Government last night was a most complete justification of the course taken by the opponents of the Bill; and the manner in which they had allowed the Resolution to be carried
  1688
  without a single word of debate, showed that they were prepared to accept a proper Resolution if it had been submitted to them. He protested against any change being made in the arrangements for taking the Education Estimates to-morrow, as hon. Gentlemen had made their arrangements on the understanding that those Estimates would then be taken. The reason assigned for the Bill being taken to-morrow was that great progress was not made last night. Now, was there any obstruction? Was there any debate on questions which were not deserving of full consideration? The right hon. Gentleman knew thoroughly that the debates on the Bill had not extended to the length which the importance of the subject justified; and it should be borne in mind that the Government allowed four hours of debating before they made the concession, which, if it had been offered earlier, would have greatly facilitated the progress of the Bill. The Government did not seem to be very keen about proceeding with the Bill; for, although they had taken the day from private Members, there had not been a single Member of the Government at prayers. Only two of the supporters of the Bill had been at prayers, and no Member of the Cabinet made his appearance till 25 minutes after 12. It was only by the exertions of hon. Members opposed to the Bill that a House had been made. There could be no reason for proceeding with the Bill to-morrow.
  MR. DILLWYNseconded the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
  After explanations from the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER,
  Motion, by leave, Withdrawn,
  Original Question put.
  Ordered, That the Report be received To-morrow.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERhoped the Motion would not be persevered with, though he was not surprised that it had been made. He confessed that he was much surprised at the observations made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was true the right hon. Gentleman had, in effect, said that he did not mean to

  1689
  cast any imputation upon the proceedings of the Opposition; nevertheless, the observations of the right hon. Gentleman did convey a very serious imputation upon the proceedings of hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House in relation to the Bill in question. Surely there should be allowed the most perfect freedom of debate upon a question of such immense importance as this was? About four hours of the debate yesterday might have been saved if the Government had made the concession sooner which they had afterwards felt themselves compelled to agree to. Then there came on a most important question affecting our international obligations, upon which considerable discussion took place. That discussion, he submitted, was fully justified by the extreme gravity of the question and the course taken by the Government. Never the less, the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to think that the conduct of the Members who took part in that discussion was of an obstructive character, although such discussion did not really commence until 9 o'clock last night.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, he was not going to make any charge of undue obstruction against hon. Members opposite; but if the question of international obligations raised by the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) was of such extreme and vast importance, why had the adjournment of the House been moved the moment the House met? How was it, again, that during the four days' debate this question of international obligations had not been raised?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER MR. W. E. FORSTER rose to explain. It was quite true the point had not been raised on the second reading of the Bill, because the main point of difference did not then appear. Since the Government had made the concession with regard to the five countries, the point had been referred to.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he could give an answer, in some degree, to the challenge of the hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin). He had taken a very great interest in the Bill, and had felt the great difficulty of the question. Many communications had been made to him about it; but he had felt that there were many Gentlemen better able to enlighten the House on the general provisions of the Bill than
  1690
  he was. He owned he agreed that this question of the Treaties might have been noticed on the first introduction of the Bill, and there were Friends behind him who would bear witness that, though he had said nothing on the point, he had urged them from the first to introduce this question of the Treaties. He felt the most perfect conviction that this measure was inconsistent with the Treaties. Although the introduction of this point in the debate had been very late, he suspected it would be found to have added very considerably to the difficulties of dealing with the question; because those who had the conviction, as he had, that the Bill was contrary to Treaties, were not justified, in a matter of such extreme importance, in resting content either with a single debate or a single decision of the Committee. It was their duty to exert themselves to the utmost to bring home to the House the nature of the proposal that had been made by the Government, and they could not do that without entering freely and, if need were, repeatedly into a discussion of the question. Considering that several hours had been spent last night on a subject of International Law and obligations, he had never known more unfortunate language used, tending, in its nature, to a breach of freedom of debate, than the language of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day. If they were to have such discussions as that of last night, then special measures must be taken to facilitate the Bill, said the right hon. Gentleman. Now, there was no doubt about the Parliamentary meaning of these words, although that meaning might not have been present in the right hon. Gentleman's mind. And, until answers were forth coming far more cogent and pointed, and going far more directly to the case in hand, than the answers given last night, the Government might rely upon it that they would be challenged again and again to say how they reconciled the provisions of the Bill with the obligations of the country under certain Treaties? He might be allowed to make a protest, on behalf of liberty of trade, in a case of the very highest importance, and of international importance, where our good relations with foreign countries and where our reputation for honour and good faith were concerned; and he might also be allowed to protest against

  1691
  any attempt to limit the freedom and largeness of debate, which the raising of such a question not only justified but rendered necessary.
  MR. NEWDEGATEwas far from denying that the question raised by the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) was of the greatest importance; but previous to that question there had been something like obstruction. He did trust, however, that there would not be obstruction here after. He must say that, considering in the House of Lords the United States were excepted, so far as their cattle was concerned, from internal arrangements which it was intended to apply to other cattle——
  MR. SPEAKER: I wish to point out to the hon. Member and to the House, that any discussion of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill on this occasion would be altogether out of Order. I must remind the House that the Question immediately before it is the adjournment of the House.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, perhaps he was travelling a little farther than the right hon. Gentleman. He believed this to be a very important question, and he hoped the House would give the agricultural body, which was prepared to submit to severe restrictions, fair play.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he wished to make a few observations on the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone), who, he regretted to see, had left the House. The remarks he had made a few minutes ago in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) had been misunderstood. He did not intend for a single moment to deny that the question raised in the discussion yesterday with regard to our foreign relations was a matter of very great importance. He did not deny that it was one properly entitled to discussion on the part of the House. What he did point out was that the manner in which that discussion was carried on arid brought to a conclusion would render it necessary for the Government, if they were to continue to proceed in the same way as yesterday, to take more time for this Bill than they anticipated would be necessary, and therefore it was that they proposed to go on with the Bill to-morrow. He did not for one
  1692
  moment deny that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) was one which he had a perfect right to bring forward, nor did he say that the speeches made upon it were not to the point. The debate was a very full one, on the part especially of the legal Members of the House; and he thought he might say that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman had been very freely discussed on his own side, and that a vote might have been come to in the course of the hour or hour and a-half which had been occupied by Motions for the reporting of Progress and for the adjournment of the House. In making use of the observations to which reference had been made, he did not wish in any way to interfere with a fair and full discussion of the point which had been raised. He was perfectly prepared to hear the question debated on another occasion, as he did not doubt it would be; but he would remind the House that the Question before them was one for adjournment, upon which they might spend an hour or an hour and a-half, although it had nothing whatever to do with the merits of the Bill. They were then, he said, in a position which perfectly justified the language which he had ventured to use. He said again that they desired to make progress with the Bill without in any way shrinking from, or wishing to interfere with, fair and full discussion; but if they were to be met with Motions for reporting Progress and for adjournment in the manner they had been, they would be obliged to ask the House to allow them to devote to it time which they had hoped to apply to the furtherance of other Public Business.
  SIR HENRY JAMESconcurred with the right hon. Gentleman that an unnecessary Motion for adjournment ought not to be made; but he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the observations he himself made were the occasion of the Motion before the House, which was further justified by the remarks which the right hon. Gentleman had just added when he desired to be conciliatory. The right hon. Gentleman said the manner in which the discussion arose last night, and the consequence of what then occurred, justified the observations he had made. Well, he believed that everyone on that side of the

  1693
  House, who took part in that debate, was prepared to accept the responsibility of what occurred. That the question was an important one was admitted. Her Majesty's Government maintained that the Bill did not amount to a breach of Treaty obligations. On that side of the House they were as firm in their view that it did. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer desired to maintain Treaty obligations, he might, by accepting the Amendment, render a renewed and perhaps prolonged discussion of the question unnecessary; but until that point was established, they would be a little sensitive in respect of the tone and manner of such a rebuke as the right hon. Gentleman had administered to them.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONhad no hesitation in saying that a wrong interpretation had been put upon the observations of his right hon. Friend, and that they right not to convey—and were not intended to convey—the meaning which had been attributed to them. For his own part, he never said—nor had any Member of the Government ever said—that they should insist on their proposal even if they believed that it amounted to a breach of Treaty obligations. What they did say was that they believed firmly that the clause did not, and would not, in any way violate those obligations. They had endeavoured to show that the action of Parliament was that to which they should alone look in respect of the regulations to be made with reference to cattle imported, and to the Privy Council as the agents for carrying out those regulations; but he did not say, nor did he even hint, that if the Government believed or thought that any part of the Bill would lead to a violation of Treaty obligations, they would insist on its adoption. On the contrary, they believed that no violation of Treaty obligations would occur under the Bill. The Government did not object to a full discussion of the question which had been raised; but they said that as, in consequence of that discussion, the Committee would occupy a longer period than, had been contemplated, they would require to devote to it, if necessary, time in which they had hoped to make progress with other Business.
  MR. J. COWENsaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer complained of the
  1694
  discussion which had arisen that morning on the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke); but he thought the right hon. Gentleman should take upon himself the blame arising from the fact. The right hon. Gentleman knew that when the Resolution which was discussed last night was submitted as amended, it was agreed to without a word, and he would remember that when asked a question as to the consideration of the Report tomorrow, he answered the question, but put a sting in his answer. He did not suppose the right hon. Gentleman meant it; but the answer did imply that hon. Members on that side of the House were worthy of censure for what occurred last night. Now, his constituents were as much, if not more, interested in the Bill than any other constituency in the Kingdom, and yet, though the debate on the second reading of the Bill lasted four nights, he had not uttered one word on the subject, nor did he do so until the special interests of those whom he represented were about to be affected. It was, therefore, he thought, rather unfair to make such a charge as that to which reference had been several times made. The issue of the discussion he had taken part in yesterday was a proof that they were perfectly justified in having raised it, as it had resulted in a concession on the part of Her Majesty's Government. Many hon. Gentlemen considered that this Bill would seriously injure the interests of those places which they represented. That was a matter of opinion; but they believed in that opinion, and they were justified in making every attempt to enforce it. He was satisfied that the Chancellor of the Exchequer or any other right hon. or hon. Gentleman who was in favour of the measure would not gain the end ho had in view by attempting to impute that the opponents of the Bill desired unnecessarily and unwisely to obstruct its progress.
  COLONEL KINGSCOTEsaid, he was one of the majority which had voted against the Motions for reporting Progress and for adjournment last night, and he had now to express a hope that Her Majesty's Government would proceed with the Bill until they got it through. It was a measure which would not bear putting off for another Session. It had been said that last night was not sufficient for the discussion of the

  1695
  Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James). Well, looking to the condition of the House at that moment, he thought there were very few Members who wished to continue the discussion, and that it might have been concluded last night in the time occupied by the Motions to which reference had been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINcould not think that the hon. and gallant Member had any authority to speak for hon. Members on that side of the House. He (Mr. Chamberlain) considered the imputations which had been thrown out as to the conduct of the opponents of the Bill extremely offensive, and as indicating an intention on the part of Her Majesty's Government to use their great majority to force the Bill through the House at all costs, without permitting to Members whose constituents were strongly interested in the Bill an opportunity of discussing fully its provisions. The hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) was of opinion that six hours were too many to devote to the consideration of a question which involved a question affecting our Treaty obligations.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, he had never stated that six hours were too many for the discussion of the Amendment. What he had pointed out was that if the question was one of great importance it was strange it had never been alluded to during the lengthened debate on the second reading of the Bill.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINobserved, that his right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) had alluded to the question in the debate on going into Committee, and had given Notice of the discussion which had arisen. With respect to the debate of yesterday, no possible charge of obstruction could be made against the opponents of the Bill, as the discussion was perfectly justified by the concession which, in the result, the Government had made. Under the circumstances, he hoped the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea would persevere with his Motion unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer fully withdrew the imputation he had made.
  MR. ANDERSONalso took exception to the charge made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for which, he
  1696
  said, there was no foundation. The reason why the Opposition insisted on reporting Progress last night was that the subject under discussion—that of the bearing of the Bill on Foreign Commercial Treaties—was extremely important; and though able lawyers had discussed it, there were other Members who wished to discuss it also, and who did not care to carry on the discussion at an hour when nothing that they said would be reported, and when the bucolic supporters of the Government were impatient of debate.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he thought he was called upon to contribute to this interesting conversation, seeing the honour of the House was in question. He defended the Amendment he had moved on the previous night, and expressed surprise at his own moderation in the occupation of time over it. In his view, the Government were entirely in the wrong in the course pursued last night on all the points raised.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSappealed to the common sense of the House whether the time had not come when they should endeavour to make some progress with the Bill. The words of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had received a stronger interpretation than he expected, but hon. Members had a perfect right to protest. Having now made their protest for some time, he hoped they would be satisfied. The Government fancied that after the discussion of last night they might be allowed to proceed with the Bill, it being admitted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich that the mode chosen was not the best in which the question involved in the Amendment might have been raised. It did not surprise him that the question was raised; and it was fully discussed. However, when they left last night it was understood that there would be a further debate that day on the question; and he hoped that hon. Members, as sensible men, would now proceed with the Committee.
  MR. MUNTZsaid, he was glad to hear an allusion at last made to common sense. This was a very important question, considering that they were just on the eve of negotiating a fresh Treaty of Commerce with France. In his opinion, the Government were wrong in the course they adopted, and that the pro-

  1697
  ceedings of the opponents of the Bill were justified by the circumstances in which they found themselves.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERhoped that after the appeal made by the right hon. Gentleman they would resume the discussion of the clause in Committee. He was not surprised at the remarks which the observations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had elicited. His right hon. Friend was generally so kindly that any apparent imputation from him was felt more than it would be from anyone else. However, he was quite sure now that the right hon. Gentleman did not mean to make any charge of obstruction, and that any such charge was entirely withdrawn; and, therefore, he hoped the Committee would now be permitted to resume its labours.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he hoped there would be no division on the Motion then before the House. The trade of this country in imports and exports with those countries with which England had Commercial Treaties amounted to £150,000,000, and to £100,000,000 with those countries whose Treaties would be violated if this Bill were passed in its present form.
  MR. SPEAKERobserved, that the hon. Member was out of Order in pursuing such a course of argument.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he was only justifying the course that was pursued yesterday by the Opposition, and how important it was that the House should consider this Bill in respect to our Treaty obligations.
  MR. JACOB BRIGHTurged his hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea to withdraw his Motion for adjournment, although he thought it was justified by the language of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Original Question put.
  Ordered, That the Report be received To-morrow.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) BILL— [Lords]— [BILL 204.]
  (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 16th July.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  PART I.—GENERAL.
  Clause 2 (Commencement of Act).
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 17, after the word "Act," to insert the words "Provided, That no such order shall be valid if its operation shall be inconsistent with the obligations existing under any commercial treaty for the time being in force.''—(Sir Henry James.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. PELLsaid, that although the debate of the previous evening was protracted to an exceedingly late hour, he was not one of those who thought time had been wasted. If it were possible to effect the object the Committee had in view—which was to permit the free importation of wholesome meat into this country as far as was consistent with the security, with reasonable security to the breeders of and dealers in beasts—without going so far as this Bill did, he would be glad to see it so effected. He was not going to treat this as a question between the urban and the rural populations; because he would candidly acknowledge that many borough Members had supported the Government, and that, on the other hand, there were some Representatives of counties who did not entirely concur with the supporters of the Bill. He desired to view the question, as far as he could, from the foreign countries' point of view. The question that occurred to him as requiring an answer was—''Are we about to do by this Bill that which may embarrass the country hereafter in its relations to foreign States?" Drawing his conclusions from the debate of last night, he was inclined to think that there was such doubt on this question that it might be well not further to take up the time of Parliament in discussing the question. He ventured to make a suggestion of his own as to the solution of the difficulty. On the second reading of the Bill he had said that he had doubts whether the House was dealing rightly with those countries which had been proved nearly, if not quite, free from the danger which was dreaded. He would now make a proposal that other countries should be placed on much the same footing as that in which it was proposed to place Denmark, Spain, and Portugal, under the Bill. He had given Notice of an Amendment to the clause which the Secretary to the Treasury proposed to introduce in regard to those countries. The effect of that Amendment would be to require that

  1699
  both Houses of Parliament should be furnished with the statement of the reasons which the Privy Council had for relaxing the strict provisions of the Bill in the case of any of the five countries he named. If that Amendment were accepted, there would be as much security, as perhaps, the country was intitled to expect; and he now desired to see the relaxation extended to other countries, provided the accompanying security were given that would be embodied in his Amendment, requiring reasons to be laid before Parliament, and thus affording Parliament an opportunity for discussing these reasons. It was obvious that in that case the Privy Council for the time being would not be enabled to suspend the general provisions of the Act without stating to the country at large that it had grounds for so doing. If his idea were accepted and embodied in the Bill, the country would be reasonably safe against the introduction of foreign disease, and the difficulty as to the "Most Favoured Nation Clauses" would be got over at once. He gave Notice that, at the right time, he would move a clause embodying these suggestions. If it were adopted, he hoped it would clear away one important difficulty and enable the Committee to proceed with the Amendment of the Bill. The question that had now been raised as to foreign countries was entirely new to himself. He never heard it raised, as they would naturally have expected that it would have been raised, on the second reading of the Bill. The Opposition had made the best of the hare they had started, and no one could blame them for it. He only wished they had found it earlier, and given the House an opportunity of preventing its being the cause of so much time being occupied. Having said that much, he would not further take up the time of the House; but would, at the proper time, move the Amendment which he had read to the House.
  MR. PEASEwished to make one or two observations to the House, of much the same character as those of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire, whose views he shared. He was very anxious that the Bill should pass for the purpose of regulating the home trade in cattle, and of preventing the spread of disease by means of the foreign imports. Hitherto he had kept silence during the
  1700
  debates upon the Bill, in order that it might the more quickly go into Committee, when the serious points could be discussed. The question raised last night by the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) was, in its broad aspects, new to him. Up to the moment that it was brought forward, he confessed that he should have been quite prepared to have voted for the alteration proposed by Her Majesty's Government to practically arrange countries under three Schedules. But after hearing the debates, no one could help coming to the conclusion that, in forming these Schedules, they were treading on excessively dangerous ground, and that that which they desired to accomplish would be paid for at too dear a price. The existence of these Commercial Treaties in their integrity, he must remind hon. Members representing agricultural constituencies, was of vital importance to the agricultural interest. Although it might be very well to say, like the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), that the Midlands supplied Birmingham with meat, yet it must be remembered that it was doubtful whether the meat would be required but for the trade brought into the country by the Reciprocity Treaties. Therefore, in his opinion, the time was well spent last night in discussing this question, for they now knew the extent of the danger they ran and the importance of refraining from doing the slightest thing by any Act they could pass which would damage these Reciprocity Treaties in the eyes of other countries. He understood his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) to propose that all animals should by law be slaughtered at the port of landing; but that those countries which had fulfilled certain regulations made by the Privy Council, and assented to by Parliament, should have cattle admitted without slaughter. The question of the "Most Favoured Nation Clause" would not then arise, for each country, when free from disease, could obtain the admittance of its animals. In his opinion, the Government would do well to adopt that suggestion. By carefully drawing the regulations, and providing that they should be laid before Parliament, practically the same result as to prohibition would be effected as if the three Schedules were adopted. In

  1701
  the case of Germany there was a long frontier, and almost an impossibility of guarding against disease from Russia. If all countries were treated alike, the regulations would provide that all frontiers must be carefully guarded, and such internal regulations made as would cheek the disease. But the moment the Privy Council were satisfied that everything had been done, and that any particular country was free from disease, then they should have power to admit its cattle without slaughter. In that way, this country would be offering the greatest possible inducement to other countries to stamp out the disease—an inducement which would have so much effect on Holland, Germany, and France, that they would endeavour to do so. Therefore, he thought the suggestion of his hon. Friend would, without increasing the danger, give every encouragement to those countries to make themselves equal to Denmark and America in their freedom from disease, and compete in the English market. While thus treating all countries alike, the proposal would also be making the best possible provision for the food of the country.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he had placed upon the Paper an Amendment, the effect of which would be to place all countries on the same footing. Up to the present time, he had been prepared to view the concession made by the Government with reference to the five countries as sufficient, and not to propose his Amendment; for, although he thought that the proposal made by the Government was not all that they could desire, yet a concession made on one side must be met half-way on the other. If, therefore, the point under discussion had not been raised, he should not have moved the Amendment of which he had given Notice. But it appeared to him that that new point altogether altered the aspect of affairs; and, on carefully looking over the whole of the arguments of the previous night, he was bound to say that, in his opinion, the Government had certainly not established their position. He had come to the conclusion that the Government, by asking Parliament to take from them the power of giving certain countries advantages, was, in fact, asking Parliament to pass an Act which would render it impossible for them to carry out their Treaty en-
  1702
  gagements without coming to Parliament again for the purpose of giving them that power. The Government contended that the difference lay only between an Act of Parliament and an Order in Council. But that was all the difference in the world—for, in the one case, power to carry out Treaty engagements was taken; while, in the other, the hands of the Government were bound by an Act of Parliament; and it would be necessary to come for another Act to undo what had been previously done. He thought the suggestion of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) was in the right direction, and he hoped the Government would bring forward some proposition to meet the difficulty. For his part, he considered that if the Government wished to make progress with the Bill, it would be better to make the concession a real and solid one. It was proposed to make three or four classes of countries. Canada and the United States were unscheduled countries, and were to be allowed to send their cattle in freely without any discretion on the part of the Government. Then the Privy Council were to have the power to admit animals from Spain, Portugal, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark without specifying any reasons to Parliament. Then the hon. Member for South Leicestershire proposed to add another class, by giving the Privy Council power to admit any other country on condition that they laid their reasons before Parliament. He did not think it was justifiable to create so many categories. It appeared to him that it would be wiser and better for the Government to take power to exempt any country, and not to treat any country exceptionally in the Schedule—not even America. With a slight alteration, he thought the Amendment he had placed upon the Paper would entirely meet the justice of the case. He would wipe out all those excluded countries in the Schedule, and simply insert the following words at the end of Clause 33:—
  ''The Privy Council, on its being shown to their satisfaction that in any of the countries to which the Schedule applies, the laws therein as to the importation and exportation of animals, and as to the prevention and the treatment of disease, are sufficient to afford a reasonable security against the importation there from of diseased animals, and being further satisfied that the disease is not prevalent in such country, may, from time to time, by general and special Orders,

  1703
  exempt that country from the regulations as to compulsory slaughter."
  If that suggestion were adopted, it could not be said that any one country was treated differently from another. There would be but one category instead of three, and all the securities necessary for proper protection would be assured. If the Government yielded on this point, as, in his opinion, they must, he hoped they would accept his Amendment, or one of the like character.
  COLONEL KINGSCOTEwas in hopes that after the discussion the previons night, which he quite agreed turned upon an entirely new point, that the Government would have made some concession in the matter. He was very desirous that the diseases of animals should be stopped in this country. That was his main object; but if these Treaty obligations would be affected by the Act, and they would be brought into conflict with other countries, let them endeavour to carry out what they desired—the prevention of disease in this country—by other means. The nearest approach to a satisfactory solution of the question was, he thought, shadowed forth by the hon. Members for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) and the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie). If restrictions were put upon farmers and graziers at home, some similar restrictions must be applied to cattle imported from abroad. He wished to see as much responsibility as possible thrown upon the Privy Council in this matter. Two or three years ago, evidence was given by the Privy Council officers, to the effect that it was impossible for rinderpest to re-appear in this country. But it did appear again, and he considered that the proper amount of responsibility should be placed upon a Department which lightly expressed opinions of that kind.
  MR. CLARE READsaid, he was unfortunately not a lawyer, and he had not now the advantage of being a commercial man.; but he could bring common sense to bear on this subject, and he could not understand why his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire should propose to treat America, which was a clean country, so far as cattle diseases were concerned, in a manner different from that in which European countries, if they, too, happened to be clean, were to be treated. He should have thought that the same rule ought
  1704
  to be applied to one country as to the other. There was evidence that certain countries in Europe were never free from disease, and that was the reason that the Government concession did not extend to them. He would make one observation with reference to what had fallen last night from the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster). It was a mistake to treat this as a Cattle Plague Bill. The cattle plague was effectually dealt with in the measure of 1869. But the present Bill proposed, for the first time, to treat foot-and-mouth disease and pleuro-pneumonia as diseases, to check their progress in the country as well as to stop their importation. It had been suspected that Holland might stop importation from Germany, and so become free from disease; but it had been proved, over and over again, that Holland was never free from pleuro-pneumonia. Last year there were 951 cases of that disease in that small country. In the same period, 1,405 cases of foot-and-mouth disease were imported into this country from Holland. It might be very well to vest a discretion in the Privy Council as to the cattle plague; but it was different with regard to these diseases which were constant. The Chief Veterinary Inspector for the Government of France gave evidence before the Committee, and when asked how long pleuro-pneumonia had existed in France, said it had been there from time immemorial. Whether he intended to date back its introduction to the first year of the reign of Richard I., he (Mr. Clare Read) did not know. With respect to foot-and-mouth, the same witness could not say when it first appeared in his country, but knew that it had for several years become indigenous. It appeared to him (Mr. Clare Read) to be beyond all doubt that France, Belgium, Holland, Germany, Russia, and Austro-Hungary, were unable to free themselves from these diseases which they were about to stamp out in this country. Therefore, he would have thought it easy to say, as the Government did—"There are countries from which we must exclude all cattle from entering England." But he considered that if it could be shown that any country had been free from disease for 12 months, these same regulations might be inserted in the Act with regard to the removal of the prohibition. It must,

  1705
  however, be remembered that the Bill was not for the prevention of cattle plague, but for the extermination of the two diseases—foot-and-mouth and pleuro-pneumonia—and that all cattle from countries infected with them must be prevented entering the country.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTdid not think that it could be justly said that time had been wasted by the discussion that had taken place. It would have been a great loss to the Committee if they had not had the speeches of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell), of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie), and of the hon. and gallant Member for West Gloucestershire (Colonel Kingscote). Certainly, the hon. Members for the counties of Gloucester and Leicester were as well qualified as any to speak on behalf of the agricultural interests of the country. The proposals which had been made by those hon. Members, and by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, speaking for the urban population, would go far, if adopted, to facilitate the progress of the Bill. He had listened carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read), and had failed to detect in it anything which detracted from the position taken by the hon. Gentleman to whom he had referred. Moreover, the hon. Member, who occupied the position of President of the Royal Agricultural Society, had expressed his willingness to accept their suggestion. What was their proposal? That no countries at all should be named in the Bill, and that the Privy Council should be intrusted with the responsibility of deciding, under the varying circumstances, the countries to which the restrictions should apply. The hon. Member for South Norfolk had given strong reasons why cattle from Holland and some other countries should not be admitted; but the Privy Council, in deciding on those cases, would have the advice and assistance of many persons well acquainted with the subject, and, amongst others, of the hon. Member for South Norfolk. Therefore, if it were true—as it no doubt was—that Holland was in a condition that made it right that her cattle should not be admitted, the Privy Council would, under the proposition of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire, exclude them, and also the cattle from other countries in a
  1706
  similar state. It had been objected that the Opposition had raised what the hon. Member for South Leicestershire called a new "hare;" but it must be remembered that the injustice of which complaint was made was not in the original Bill. It was not until the Government made its second concession, and took the five countries from the Schedule, that the necessity for raising the question became apparent. [Mr. PELL: America was not scheduled.] No doubt the question might have been raised with regard to America; but the importance of the matter was not so clear until the other countries were brought in. There had been the fullest possible intimation that this question was intended to be raised, and if the point were a good one the House would deal with it. He only mentioned the matter for the purpose of meeting the objection that the question had been brought before the House by surprise; and it must also be remembered that the point was treated at some length by his right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) on the second reading of the Bill. It seemed to him that the tone of the debate that morning had been more favourable to the proposition than it was the previous night. There had been a more conciliatory tone on both sides of the House with respect to the matter, and it was now seen that the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) was not vexatious, but one which referred to a very serious difficulty, which both sides of the House were anxious to remove if possible. He did not desire to go into the details of the proposal of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire, but would wish to hear what Her Majesty's Government had to say with reference to it. He supposed that the Government might then go on with the Bill, and that those who were opposing it might rest satisfied with the assurance that the difficulties which they had foreseen, and to which they had called the attention of the House, would be removed. Without pledging either the Government or the other side to the details that were to be adopted, if the Government were prepared to agree to the proposition that all countries should be put on the same footing, leaving to the Privy Council the absolute discretion—or, to use the words that had been used by the hon. Member

  1707
  for the Town Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie), the "heavy responsibility"—of admitting cattle from foreign countries, the Privy Council being responsible to the nation and to Parliament, why, then, he would say, that the adjournment of the debate had gone a long way towards carrying the Bill. There was this strong argument with respect to the proposal of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire—that what foreign countries had to look to was the Executive. When they made a Treaty, or entered into an engagement of any kind with a foreign country, that country knew nothing of our Constitution, and did not inquire by what method we proceeded; it knew only the Executive, and it was the business of the nation and of Parliament to arm the Executive Government with the powers necessary to carry out the national obligations. That was why the Government could not turn round to a foreign country and say—"What you state is true; but we have not got the power to do what you require." The answer would be—"You ought to have the power, and it is your duty to arm yourselves with that power." Some Treaties could be carried out without recourse being had to Parliament, and for others it was necessary to have Parliamentary authority; but whether the Government came to Parliament or not, it was their duty to arm themselves with the necessary power and authority for dealing with Treaties. If they made the compulsory slaughter of foreign cattle general, with a power to the Privy Council to relax that regulation on proof given by a foreign country that it was free from cattle disease, it appeared to him that the trade would be placed on a proper footing, and that none of the difficulties which were now apprehended would arise.
  MR. HERMONsaid, he presumed they were now considering the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James). The debates on that Amendment showed him that there was a difficulty in regard to the foreign Treaties; and if there was a difficulty, it was far better that it should be cleared up in that House than that it should afterwards become a source of recrimination between different countries. He believed his hon. and learned Friend was not wedded to the words of his Amendment; but he thought the
  1708
  point should be cleared up, and that the Bill should be framed in such a way as to convince the House that they were not running counter either to the spirit or to the words of the Commercial Treaties. He thought the logical conclusion from this—and he hoped it would satisfy his hon. and learned Friend—was to name no country at all in the Schedule; and, as he had said on the second reading of the Bill, to throw a greater burden on the Privy Council, who would feel their responsibility more fully after this discussion than they had done before, and would be very glad to allow no disease over which they could exercise any control to enter the country. He did not think the discussion as to the powers to be accorded to the Privy Council would be at all thrown away. He was glad to hear the suggestion which had been thrown out by his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell). He thought that might clear the way, and he hoped the Government would take it into consideration. He saw a very formidable number of Amendments on the Paper; but he believed the adoption of that suggestion by the Government would cause the removal of nine-tenths of them, and would facilitate the passing of a Bill which would be beneficial to the country without interfering with the price of food, and which would, at the same time, give to breeders in this country the security to which they were entitled. He could not for a moment agree to put restrictions on the breeders of this country without doing something of the same kind with regard to the countries that sent us cattle. The adoption of the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire would, he repeated, in his opinion, make the Bill a good Bill, satisfactory to the breeders of cattle in this country, and not likely to lead to discontent abroad on the ground that the Government had interfered with Treaties. He must confess that in matters not connected with cattle—but the principle was the same—he had seen jealousies and troubles arising in connection with Commercial Treaties; and he thought that had been particularly the case in regard to the Italian Treaty, and also in regard to that with Spain and Portugal. Such disputes were most vexatious and troublesome to commercial men; and to

  1709
  give rise to them by this Bill could do no good at home, and would set up heartburnings abroad. He thought that leaving all names out of the Schedule would be the best way of settling this question.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, that those who had hitherto felt it to be their duty to oppose the Government would be rejoiced to give the further progress of the Bill their best assistance if their objections were removed by the acceptance, on the part of the Government, of the principle of the suggestion of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell). He said "the principle of the suggestion," because he had not been quite able to follow its terms. He took that principle to be this—that there should be absolute equality of all foreign countries, and that would be best brought about by carrying out the suggestion of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hermon), and omitting all countries from the Schedule. If any country was named, it must be because they intended to establish a distinction between it and other countries, and if they established such a distinction, then the objection of the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) could be maintained, and they would not be fulfilling their Treaty obligations. There were two ways in which equality could be realized—one was by levelling up, the other by levelling down. They could level down America and Canada, and make compulsory slaughter the rule, allowing the Privy Council to make exceptions to the rule as it should see fit. But, surely, such an arrangement as that would be exceedingly unreasonable, and he hoped the House would not consent to it. What possible ground could the Government give for putting on America and Canada restrictions which, by the action of the Government, had been shown to be totally unnecessary? The only proper course for the Government to take was to level up, and to put all countries into the position in which they placed the United States now, allowing them to send their cattle to this country unless the Privy Council were satisfied, as to any particular country, of its un-healthiness. If the Government were now considering the possibility of accepting the suggestion which had been made, it might be desirable that the Chairman should report Progress, though
  1710
  he would not make a Motion to that effect himself, in order that, on a future occasion, the exact terms of the proposed Amendment might be brought up and considered by the House. He was quite sure that such a course on the part of the Government would materially Favour the speedy progress of the Bill; for it was quite true, as the hon. Member for Preston had said, that many Amendments would disappear from the Paper if this concession were made. He had himself placed on the Paper a large number of Amendments, the effect of which would be to make more stringent the home regulations, for he felt that it was radically inconsistent to exclude the cattle of any foreign country unless, at the same time, they took precautions which were proved to be necessary in order to stamp out disease at home; but if the proposed regulations with regard to foreign cattle were struck out of the Bill, he should not feel justified in pressing all his Amendments against those who represented the agricultural interest. He believed the postponement of the further consideration of the Bill until the Government should be able to make a proposition in the sense of the suggestion made by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire was now the course best calculated to facilitate the progress of the measure.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, he was glad to take this opportunity of offering to the House his humble views as to the suggestion of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell), and as to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James). He had been unwilling to do so sooner, and he had been listening while a great legal authority on International Law was addressing the House, for an explanation of how it came about that hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite had not been able to discover, on the second reading of the Bill, that a great question with regard to foreign Treaties was raised by this Bill. Many persons had asked him how it was that this difficulty had not been discovered before. He really could not quite believe in the reality of this new discovery, for he could not pay so bad a compliment to all the legal talent opposite as to suppose that the point had escaped their notice. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone)

  1711
  had stated that it had not escaped his attention, and that he had called the attention of his Colleagues to it; but, in spite of that, and although this took place on the second reading, not one hon. or right hon. Gentleman opposite had taken the smallest notice of it. He could only, therefore, repeat his great surprise that they should now consider it a matter of such enormous importance. He hoped, however, to meet them in a conciliatory spirit. On the previous night he had expressed his strong opposition to further concessions in the direction in which they had hitherto proceeded, and to unlimited discretion being vested in the Privy Council. He had been repeatedly asked during the debate why he objected to place confidence in the Privy Council? His answer was obvious—that it was going back to the old state of things, and they knew from experience that the result of placing unlimited confidence in the Privy Council had been the admission of cattle plague time after time, and also other diseases. Could hon. Gentlemen opposite, then, express surprise that he and his Friends were not prepared to rush again into the arms of the Privy Council? But the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire was somewhat different from that. It was not unlimited confidence that was proposed. His hon. Friend suggested a Proviso—that the Orders in Council should be laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament; and, so long as that Proviso was retained, he, for one, would not oppose the proposal of his hon. Friend. He was disposed to accept it for one reason more than another. Hon. Members on that side of the House had been constantly accused of a desire to encourage Protection, and to give a monopoly to farmers. For his own part, he could truly say that his sole object throughout had been to increase the supply and to diminish the price of food to the people; and he had no doubt in his own mind—and he never had had the slightest doubt from the beginning of this discussion—that the effect of the Bill would be to increase the supply of food and to diminish its price. But hon. Members opposite really must remember that there must be a limit to concession. If the Bill were to be effective at all, they must impose considerable restrictions upon the farmers at home, and if they
  1712
  imposed those restrictions without giving the farmers fair security against the return of diseases from, abroad, they would be perpetrating an injustice to which he would never consent to become a party. So long as the farmers had this fair security—as he thought they would have under the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire—he, for one, should be ready to do anything to meet the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and to join with them, if they would join with hon. Members on his side, in framing a measure which would effect the object which every one of them wished to see accomplished.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he thought that after the discussion which had taken place, they had arrived at a point at which the Government should state how far they could accept the proposal which had been suggested. With regard to the principle which was involved in the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire, and which had been very clearly put by his hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hermon) and others, he was quite prepared to say, on the part of the Government, that they were ready to accept that principle. As he understood it, it was to omit from the Schedule of the Bill any distinction between one country and another. He would repeat what he had contended for on the previous night—that it was not the intention of the Government to make any distinction between one country and another under similar circumstances, and the only question was to determine in what way the circumstances were similar. He thought that in agreeing to strike out all distinctions as to the United States of America or any European countries, and in treating all countries as on the same footing, it was obvious that they must consider rather carefully what was to be the precise position in which they were going to place those countries; and he could not undertake, without further consideration, to say how far the Government would be prepared to go in accepting the precise proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire. But he was prepared to say that the Government would accept the principle of omitting he distinction between one country and another. With regard to the proposal

  1713
  of the hon, and learned Gentleman the Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James), he took an objection to it on the previous night, and he really thought his objections had not been answered. It seemed to him that they would do well to dispose of that Amendment, and to proceed with the discussion of those parts of the Bill which came next in order. He could not say, on the present occasion, how far the Government would be prepared to accept the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire; but he thought they ought to have Notice of the Amendment placed on the Paper, in order that they might see precisely how he would meet them. Of course, it was understood that it involved the principle that Parliament was to have notice of any proceeding on the part of the Privy Council, and whether that was to be embodied in one particular form or in another was a matter of consideration and arrangement. But he agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), and others, that it was essential, if they were to impose greater restrictions upon the home management of animals which were infected with disease, and were to put greater restrictions upon the breeders and owners of cattle, for the purpose of stamping out disease, it was necessary to take efficient precautions against the importation of diseased animals, which would entirely neutralize the precautions taken at home. This was the sole object which the Government had in view, and they wished to take the necessary precautions with as little restriction on trade as possible, consistently with their main object; but they must take care that the main object was answered. He did not think that to leave the matter, as it had been left, in the hands of the Privy Council, would be sufficient security; but they must take care that the restrictions and the permissions to be established by the Bill were such as would certainly give to Parliament a bonâ fide control over the course taken by the Privy Council.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he must join in the congratulations which had been expressed at the turn which the debate had taken; and he thought they were very much indebted to the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell), who had shown them a way by
  1714
  which they might arrive at a temperate and reasonable consideration of how they might legislate for the real interest of the country. He was quite sure that the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read), and other Members, had the same feeling on the subject that he himself had, and that they were all anxious to do anything that could possibly be done to prevent the spread of disease. He thought the statement just made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would meet the objection of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James). He understood the Government distinctly to say that they did not intend any preference to be given to one country over another; and that, without admitting the contention to be correct that by requiring an Act of Parliament in one case, and an Order in Council in another, there would be such a distinction, they were willing to admit that it would be well to avoid the appearance of any preference, and that in that respect all countries were to be treated alike. If he were right in that understanding, he had no doubt that his hon. and learned Friend would at once withdraw his Amendment, and would not wish to detain, the House longer in discussing it. But it was impossible to pass over this question without considering the effect the new provision would have on the general position of the Government. There was no doubt that the clause had led to a feeling that the foreign trade was unfairly treated, and that the interest of the consumer was not sufficiently considered. In fact, there were two policies in the Bill—an absolute discretion being given to the Privy Council with regard to the home trade, and a limited discretion with regard to the foreign trade. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had not said to what extent he accepted the suggestion of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire; but, from the tone of his remarks, and from the appeals which had been made to him on both sides of the House, as strongly by Friends of the agricultural interest as by Representatives of large boroughs, he (Mr. W. E. Forster) felt sure that the Government did intend to admit the principle which had been mainly contended for on the Liberal side—that was to say, that the Execu-

  1715
  tive Government of the day were to be allowed in the future, as in the past, to make such regulations as they should consider necessary for the prevention of disease, but only those regulations that were necessary, and that they would not interfere with trade more than could possibly be helped. [Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON assented.] He was glad to see the Secretary to the Treasury nod his head. He understood that was the principle now conceded, and that was what hon. Members on that side had been contending for. What had made the right hon. Gentleman think they were rather obstinate was the strength of their feeling that in such an important matter as the supply of food to the community, the Executive Government ought to have very great responsibility as to any interference with trade, and ought not to be bound by any hard-and-fast line laid down in an Act of Parliament; but that they ought to be free to relax the stringency of the regulations wherever it might be necessary. That was all that was really required, and if his hon. Friend's suggestions were carried out, it would be a very considerable gain on the side which he had been supporting. They must never expect that a minority should get exactly its own way, and, if they obtained the principle, they must not mind very much about the form; but, in giving the principle, the Government had made a very great concession. If the rule was to be in favour of slaughter at the ports, instead of cattle coming in wards—["No, no!"]—well, a very great concession had been made, and he was quite prepared, when they got to the clause, to give strong reasons why he thought the presumption should be in favour of inclusion, and not in favour of exclusion. But the principle of the matter did not rest on that point, and he was convinced of this—that if the Privy Council had the power in any way to prevent the import of food from being interfered with, such was the strong necessity of the case that, if it were not necessary to interfere with it, the Privy Council would not make the interference. He did not believe that there would be much practical difference, whether the apparent rule was in favour of exclusion or inclusion; what he said was that in such an important matter it would be impossible for the Privy Council to keep
  1716
  up a restriction on trade, without being able to show that there was a strong ground of necessity. He thought that when the House knew exactly what the proposition was, and how the Government met it, they would be strongly on the side of freedom of import. He was quite prepared to admit that, as far as he understood the position of the Government, they were in favour of a creditable settlement of a most difficult question. He hoped the Executive of the Government would be allowed to deal with the matter according to the necessities and circumstances of the time, which had been the case hitherto. He was not there to defend the action of the Privy Council, either at the present time or when he was connected with it; but he must say that the business under discussion was one with which they ought to act; and if the Government would give an assurance that this was to be the principle on which they proposed to act, a greal deal of his opposition to the Bill would cease. He hoped that between this Sitting of the Committee and the next the Government would carefully consider the matter, and put them selves in a position to announce exactly the extent to which they were willing to admit this principle of discretion. He felt little doubt that in the end the hon. Member for South Leicestershire would have the satisfaction of knowing that he had contributed to a speedy and satisfactory conclusion of an important and difficult question.
  MR. CHARLEYsaid, he regarded the concessions made by the Government as most valuable. They tended in the direction of Free Trade; and all he, as the Representative of a large borough, asked was that one more concession in the same direction should be made. He objected to the application of this hard iron rule of universal compulsory slaughter. He was glad to have been told that the farmers were willing to be put under severe restrictions by the Privy Council; but what his constituents objected to was that the restrictions to be imposed upon the supply of foreign cattle to the English market were not to be imposed at the option of the Privy Council, but by Act of Parliament. What he wished for was that no foreign countries should be scheduled under this Bill; but that the Privy Council should have the power of scheduling them if it

  1717
  thought fit. This was the view, too, entertained by his constituents, and he had felt bound to express it to the House.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he supported the second reading of the Bill, because he believed it to embody the wishes of the British farmers to exterminate cattle disease, and because he believed the slaughter of foreign cattle at the ports of debarkation to be a cardinal point in any such plan. He had never believed that such slaughter would be prejudicial to the trade, or would have the effect of diminishing the supply; and nothing that he had heard in the course of the discussions that had taken place had changed his opinion in the slightest degree. He did not think that the second part of the Bill, dealing with the home trade, would effect the object which the Government had in view. The Government had changed their position, and materially altered the character of the Bill—in fact, by proposing to leave the matter in the hands of the Privy Council they had made no real change in the present system, and had made no provision which would give the country security against the importation of disease from foreign countries. He thought it a great pity that the House should waste time in tinkering a measure which could not possibly have any beneficial effect, because it would make no real alteration in the present state of things. It was perfectly true that the Privy Council would have to lay all their Orders on the Table of the House; but it did not follow that they would be discussed, or that, if discussed, the Government would not use its majority to back up the action taken by the Privy Council. The only result would be a possible discussion as to the propriety of some past action of the Privy Council after the disease had been imported into the country and all the mischief done.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken thought all European cattle ought to be slaughtered at the port of debarkation; but he knew that he could not get that. That was tried and had to be abandoned. The hon. Gentleman said the proposal which the Government had accepted would leave the matter as it stood. In his (Lord Elcho's) view it would reverse it. A new feature was introduced by the Amendment of his hon. Friend behind
  1718
  him, which was that if the Privy Council relieved any country from the liability of having its cattle slaughtered at the port of debarkation it would have to give reasons for doing so, which were to be laid before both Houses of Parliament. He could not but think that provision, properly worked, would give much greater security to farmers.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERthought that if the proposed discretion was left in the hands of the Privy Council, it would not much matter which way the presumption went. More than half the cattle imported would be admitted immediately, and that did away practically with the presumption of exclusion. He did not think it necessary, at this stage of the Bill, to debate the actual form of the concession. They knew that the objection of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) had been met, and that the Government had declared that all countries should be treated alike. He did not concur with what had been said by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell), on the question of the Orders of the Privy Council being submitted to both Houses of Parliament. They were now in this position—First, the danger to their international relations had ceased to exist, because the Government had declared that they would not give one country a preference over another; and, secondly, the Government had admitted that discretion was to be given to the Privy Council with regard to the foreign trade. The exact mode of effecting that object, and the precise directions to be given to the Privy Council, were matters for consideration hereafter. For his part, he would try to convert the Committee to the belief that the presumption ought to be in favour of the inclusion rather than the exclusion of foreign animals—although he could not help honestly stating that if half the Continent and the United States were to be at once admitted, he did not think his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell), or his hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read), would derive very much comfort from the fact that the rule appeared to be for exclusion.
  MR. PELLsaid, he should like to say a word or two in explanation of his Amendment. The Committee must understand that if his Amendment were

  1719
  accepted by the Government as at present drawn, they should have countries treated in three different ways, and he at once said it was not his desire to see that result follow from his Amendment. Cattle from America would come in without any further rule being imposed; cattle from Spain and Portugal, in the event of the Amendment of the Secretary to the Treasury—to which his was an addition—being carried, would come in under a relaxing Order of the Privy Council without any statement of reasons being made to Parliament; and cattle coming from what he might term the dangerous or suspected countries—such as Germany—could not be admitted by any relaxing Order of the Privy Council unless it was accompanied by a statement of reasons to be laid upon the Table of both Houses of Parliament. His hope was that the Government might be able to amalgamate these Amendments, so that while the Statutory Order should be one for slaughter applicable to all countries, there should be a general power given to the Privy Council to relax, accompanied by a statement of their reasons to be laid before Parliament. With respect to what fell from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. E. Forster), he thought the change suggested by him in the presumption as to the condition of animals imported into this country would not be a desirable one. As the law stood at present, all animals were supposed to be free to come into England, their admission being varied or checked by Orders in Council. Under this Bill, a very important change in that respect was proposed, which he hoped the Government would adhere to. It was that they should take up an attitude of distrust with respect to all countries, and let the enactment for slaughtering apply to all, with a relaxing power to the Privy Council, to be exercised under the conditions which he had stated. He did hope that in whatever way the Government might deal with his Amendment, they would adhere to that which he considered the most valuable part of it, and which alone would satisfy the country Party in that House—namely, that the Privy Council for the time being should give a statement of reasons for relaxing the Statutory Rule which the Bill imposed with regard to foreign importation.
  MR. MUNDELLAremarked, that as he had been mainly responsible for the whole of this discussion, he might be permitted to state one or two reasons why it had been raised. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had practically admitted, by the concessions which they had made, that it was both necessary and important. The hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) had talked of this as a new hare started by the Opposition, and had asked why it had not been started earlier? Well, only a week ago, his (Mr. Mundella's) attention was called to the position of their various Commercial Treaties by the opposition which had been raised to those Treaties by manufacturers in foreign countries. He wanted to state to the hon. Member and the Committee that the Protectionists on the Continent were manufacturers, and not agriculturists. Indeed, their only friends in favour of freedom there were the agriculturists. He admitted that the statement which had been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer did get rid of all the international difficulty which presented itself the day before. It was desirable, therefore, that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) should at once withdraw his Amendment, and that they should proceed to make progress with the Bill. At the same time, he wished to guard himself particularly on one point. He was willing to give absolute power to the Privy Council to exclude diseased animals. They should exercise as great an amount of vigilance as possible in that direction. They had a perfect right to protect their home flocks and herds; but, while he admitted all this, he thought that as a Free Trade country, the presumption ought not to be in favour of absolute slaughter. He reserved his liberty of action on that point until they came really to the discussion of that question.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwished to point out to the Committee that there were 86 clauses and 7 Schedules in the Bill; that it was now a quarter-past 3, or nearly so, on the 17th of July, and that this was the second day of the discussion of the Bill in Committee. The Question before them was whether a certain Amendment which had been proposed to the 2nd clause should be withdrawn? If they were all agreed that it was to be withdrawn, what were

  1721
  they discussing? His hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) had made a suggestion. He had said, on the part of the Government, that they were ready to accept the principle of that suggestion, but that they could not decide upon its details until they had seen it in print. That, he thought, was the general feeling of the Committee; and he would again appeal to them that the Government should be allowed to make progress with the Bill that day.
  MR. J. COWENquite agreed with the suggestion—which he had intended making some minutes ago—of his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), that the Amendment should be withdrawn, and that they should proceed to the consideration of the other clauses and Amendments. But he thought the Committee would see that this discussion had not been altogether useless. Hon. Gentlemen opposite would understand that the attitude which Members representing boroughs had taken upon the Bill was one of opposition. That was now altogether changed, and henceforth their position towards the Bill would be one of criticism. There was no objection, on the part of the Representatives of large boroughs, to the farmers protecting themselves against disease, and they should have the maximum of protection with the minimum of restriction. The only thing which the borough Representatives feared was that the Bill would endanger the importation of cattle unnecessarily, and thus increase the price of meat. For his part, he did not care about phraseology; he was looking at the result; and if the result which they all desired could be achieved in the way suggested by hon. Members opposite, he should be perfectly satisfied.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, he was anxious to say a few words, lest a misunderstanding might possibly arise in consequence of two speeches which had been made by prominent Members of the Liberal Party from the front Opposition Bench. A rule which he had found it extremely useful to observe was never to express his opinion on a Bill until he had seen it in print; and it seemed to him an equally important rule to observe, not to express any opinion on the Amendment until they saw that Amendment in
  1722
  print. To prevent anything like a misunderstanding, or a charge hereafter of a breach of an understanding, he wished simply to say that what he understood to be cordially accepted by hon. Gentlemen sitting on his side of the House was, that there should be no distinction made in this Bill between different countries. On that point, he believed, they were all agreed. But then came this important question. Were they going to impose new restrictions upon such a country as the United States? He wished it to be distinctly understood that, so far as he was individually concerned, he did not consider himself in the slightest degree bound by anything that had taken place that afternoon to render more onerous the restrictions of the Bill with regard to so important a meat-exporting country as the United States. Why he thought the question assumed a great importance was this—According to their own showing, the Government were going to make, with regard to the United States, the Bill more restrictive, more onerous, and more severe than it was when first introduced. He hoped that before the Government came to any conclusion upon that point they would most anxiously and carefully consider what the effect might be, not only upon this country, but upon the United States. Because, what would take place? If to-morrow, the Government should suddenly accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire, news might be telegraphed to New York that on and after the 1st of September all live cattle imported into Liverpool would be compulsorily slaughtered. Whatever hon. Members opposite might say, there was an opinion prevalent that the imposing of new restrictions on the cattle trade was virtually done in the interest of Protection. He did not say this himself, but there were thousands in this country who sincerely believed that this was a Protective Bill; and they might depend upon it that if there were thousands in this country, there were tens of thousands in the United States, who would believe it. There was, at the present moment, a keen and a closely contested struggle going on in the United States between Free Trade and Protection. The slightest thing might turn the tide of success either in one direction or the other. It seemed to him that the principles of

  1723
  Free Trade in America might soon obtain an. early triumph. But that triumph was by no means insured; and, that being the case, he did earnestly entreat the Government and commercial men on both sides of the House to consider whether, if they made the Bill more restrictive in regard to the United States, it might not place a new weapon and a new argument in the hands of the Protectionists of the United States which they would not be slow to use. Originally as the Bill was introduced, free trade with regard to the importation of cattle from the United States was made the rule, and restriction or compulsory slaughter the exception. Now, as he understood it, if the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire were accepted, free trade would become the exception and restriction the rule.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: I am sure the hon. Member would not like to make any statement which was not absolutely correct. The Bill, as introduced, included America, and the omission of that country was effected in the House of Lords.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, the statement of the Secretary to the Treasury only made his case stronger, because, after hearing the arguments adduced, the House of Lords unanimously came to the conclusion that with regard to the cattle imported from the United States free trade should be the rule, and restriction and compulsory slaughter the exception. To propose now to entirely reverse that policy in regard to a country whose susceptibilities were most sensitive, and where the Protectionist party were more powerful than anywhere else, was a most important matter, which should engage the anxious consideration of the Government, and one on which it was desirable that the Committee should not express an opinion prematurely.
  MR. MAC IVER MR. MAC IVER rose merely to point out that the hon. Member who had just spoken was fighting a shadow. He (Mr. Mac Iver) had had in his time a great deal to do with their American cousins, and he thought he might confidently assert that the views of the hon. Member were truly misapplied as regarded them. There were no people in the world who were more keenly alive to their own interests than were their American friends. They would be Free Traders when it was their interest to be so, and
  1724
  they would be Protectionists when their interests lay in Protection. They cared nothing for abstract theories. They were practical men of business, and knew exactly wherein their interest lay.
  MR. HERSCHELLsaid, his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Taunton had instructed him to ask the permission of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment, inasmuch as the concessions made by the Government had rendered it no longer necessary.
  MR. BIGGARremarked, that there was one point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Taunton which had not received from hon. Gentlemen who had addressed the Committee that amount of consideration to which it was entitled. In connection with the "Most Favoured Nation Clause," the question of the treatment in this country of cattle which had come from foreign countries was one that might be raised by them. With respect to transit, the phrase that they should be on equal terms with this country occurred in that clause, and he was disposed to think that if any one of these European countries could show it was more free from disease than this country, it could reasonably insist upon having as much facility afforded it for the transit of its cattle as was afforded to the proprietors of home cattle. He thought it would be well for the Committee to consider during the progress of the Bill to what extent it was desirable to place restrictions upon the transit of cattle belonging to clean countries, which were not thrown in the way of the movement of home stock.
  MR. BELLwished to press on both sides of the House the desirability of being allowed to proceed with the Business before the Committee. There were few Members of the House more interested in the maintenance of FreeTrade doctrines than he was himself, and he had had an opportunity of studying the question as it affected both the countries which indulged in restrictive tariffs and our own. He could place figures before the Committee illustrative of the two positions; but he forbore from doing so, because he was anxious that they should be allowed to proceed with the Bill.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the Committee that the hon. and learned Member for Durham (Mr. Herschell) proposes to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment which has been moved by

  1725
  another hon. and learned Member, who is not in his place. I believe that course is an unusual one, and I, therefore, feel it necessary to call the attention of the Committee to that fact before asking them whether it is their pleasure that the Amendment be withdrawn.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Division of Act into parts).
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, who had given Notice of an Amendment, said he wished to explain why he did not move it. The reason was that they were now in a very different position from that which they occupied at the beginning of this debate. He understood the principle to be accepted, that a discretion was to be given to the Privy Council. While that principle was disputed, he felt it his duty to bring as strongly as he could before the Committee the difference of treatment of home animals, which would include Irish animals, and foreign animals. He did not feel that it was so absolutely necessary to press that point at the present time. The object which he had in placing his Amendment on the Paper was to secure that the regulation for Ireland, as well as that for England, should be considered by the Committee before they came to foreign regulation. He still thought that course would be very desirable, and he could not help thinking that the Government themselves would agree with him. But, as he could attain that object by moving hereafter that the clauses with regard to foreign import should be postponed until they proceeded with the clauses as to Irish import, and as his desire was to get on with the Bill, he abstained from moving his Amendment.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Repeal of enactments in Schedule, with savings and other provisions) agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Interpretation and construction).
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON moved that the clause be postponed, observing that he thought it could be more conveniently discussed at a subsequent stage of the progress of the Bill in Committee.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEwished, before the Motion was agreed to, to call
  1726
  the attention of the Committee to the 11th sub-section. That sub-section, as it at present stood, was unintelligible, and he hoped that before the clause came on again it would be re-modelled.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONassented.
  Clause postponed.

  PART II.—ENGLAND.
  Clause 6 (Extent of Part II.) agreed to.
  Clause 7 (Definition of county and other districts) agreed to.

  Clause 8 (Powers of Privy Council) agreed to.

  Local Authorities.
  Clause 9 (Local authorities described in Schedule).
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEtook occasion to say that he intended to move the omission from the clause of Subsection I., which ran as follows:—
  "(i.) The Corporation of London shall alone be the local authority in and for the Metropolis for purposes of the provisions of this Act relating to foreign animals."
  It was quite true that, generally speaking, the effect of that provision would be to leave the law as it stood, and if no considerable change were proposed by the Bill, with regard to foreign animals, he should not have deemed it necessary to bring forward his Amendment. But the sub-section did not stand alone, for, by Sub-section 2, it was declared that—
  "The City of London and the Liberties thereof shall be exempt from contributing for purposes of this Act to the Metropolitan Consolidated rate."
  He must ask the Committee to take those two proposals into their consideration together, because it was impossible to ascertain the real meaning of the one apart from the other. The 1st sub-section made no change in the law; but it would make an alteration in the position of the Corporation, and enormously increase their income, if all foreign cattle were to be slaughtered at the port of landing. The 2nd subsection, however, would make a change in the law, and would, in his opinion, most unfairly give an exceptional and anomalous power to the authorities of the City of London as the authority

  1727
  or the whole of the Metropolis outside the boundaries of the City, while making it, at the same time, a separate district for the purposes of the Act, and exempting the Corporation from the liability to contribute to the Metropolitan rate. The Committee were placed in a somewhat difficult position in discussing the question—as, indeed, they had been, and would be, in dealing with the Bill throughout—inasmuch as they did not exactly know how foreign cattle would be dealt with under its operation. It was not, however, the fault of the Committee that they were obliged to discuss the subject in a slip-shod fashion. The Government had only just made up their own minds—if, indeed, they had as yet made them up at all—as to the position of foreign cattle under the Bill, so that it was impossible thoroughly to discuss the position in which the City would be placed if the sub-section which he proposed to omit were carried. It was expressly admitted, by the leading witnesses who had appeared on behalf of the Corporation before the Committee upstairs, that they would gain enormously by such a measure as the present. The extent to which they would gain, would, of course, depend on the restrictions to which the importation of foreign cattle was subjected; but if those cattle were to be more extensively slaughtered at the port of landing for the future, the Corporation would very considerably profit by the change. If even the restrictions on the countries already scheduled were only to be maintained—and he anticipated they would be continued—the Corporation would remain in the receipt, as they were now, of a vastly greater income from the cattle market under their control than it was expected they would receive when the existing law was made. He was quite aware that the senior Member for the City of London (Mr. Alderman Cotton) would try to make out that the Corporation were actually losing money by the cattle market; but, if that were so, it was because they lumped together the Islington and Deptford markets, and cattle that were slaughtered at the port of debarkation, as well as those which were not to be so slaughtered. If, besides, the Corporation were losing money at the present moment by these markets, it was owing, in great measure, to the extensive street improvements which
  1728
  had been made in connection with one of them and not with the other, which improvements were charged upon the markets. There was, he might add, considerable difficulty in arguing the question, inasmuch as the Committee had before them no detailed accounts with respect to it. He had, on the previous day, asked the senior Member for the City what was the amount of the tolls and charges levied by the Corporation, and what sum they realized both by Deptford and Islington markets? His hon. Friend, in reply, said that the Question was an unusual one, though the Forms of the House allowed it to be put. Indeed, the means of obtaining information on the subject seemed altogether to depend upon whether it might please the authorities in the City to give such information or not. In fact, the position of the City, with regard to the cattle market question, was altogether an anomalous one. The Metropolitan Board of Works were frequently asked for information—which, by the courtesy of their Chairman, was supplied—as to matters relating to the Board, and it was the senior Member for the City alone who could furnish those facts which would enable the Committee to form an intelligent opinion on the clause under discussion. He had intended to put the Question to which he had just referred openly in the House yesterday; but he had postponed doing so until Thursday, as his hon. Friend had told him that he was not in possession of the information which he required. In these circumstances, he felt that the Committee was hardly in a position to decide on the merits of his Amendment. He might, however, inform them that it had been stated by the witnesses who had been examined before the Select Committee of last year, that the gain to the City from the slaughter of all foreign cattle at the port of landing would not be less than £50,000 a-year. The Committee, would, therefore, at once see, looking at the large receipts of the City already, that the question raised by his Amendment was one of great importance, and one which ought to be considered in dealing with the present Bill. No doubt, as the Government had given up the proposal that all cattle were to be slaughtered at the port of landing, the gain of £50,000 a-year would fall to the ground; but, still, the Corporation

  1729
  would gain very considerably under the operation of the Bill. Strong objections were already urged by persons concerned in the live meat trade against the charges which were levied by the City in the existing markets. The City Corporation had been made by Parliament the sole market authority for the Metropolis, and had certain statutory powers conferred upon it, which the Legislature could at any time take away. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), in his Bill of 1869, proposed to take away those powers from the City, unless certain conditions were fulfilled. Those conditions were fulfilled, and therefore the clause which was accepted by the House in 1869 did not come into force—a clause which would take away its market authority from the City, and allow others to build markets. The fact, however, that such a clause had been passed by the House showed that Parliament had thoroughly preserved its authority over the matter; and that it could, for sufficient reason, take away the power which had been given to the City by Statute. The tolls which were levied by the Corporation had been the subject of much of the evidence which had been laid before the Committee of last year. It was stated that at the Islington Market the Corporation received 6d. for every bullock, and for sheep l¼d. each; whereas, at Deptford, they levied the most enormous tolls—namely, 5s. for a bullock, and 9d. for a sheep. The amount which was obtained in that way at Deptford was very large indeed. The Corporation alone got enormous sums as rents for the slaughter-houses, while the meat was taken to the dead meat market, which also belonged to the City. The result was that a very large sum accrued to the Corporation from those several sources of income. Hon. Members would find the evidence to which he referred given in answer to Questions 9067 and 9083 in the Report of the Committee of last year. The number of cattle and of sheep which were brought to Islington and Deptford Markets respectively were very considerable. He found that, in 1872, there had been brought to Islington 250,000 cattle, and to Deptford 38,000; in 1873, 295,000 to Islington, and 7,000 to Deptford; in 1874, 306,000 to Islington, and 7,000 to Deptford; in 1875, 301,000 to Islington,
  1730
  and 29,000 to Deptford; and, in 1876, 328,000 to Islington, and 22,000 to Deptford, of cattle, sheep, and calves. Of sheep there were 1,386,000 brought to the home market in 1872, and 123,000 to the foreign market; in 1873, 1,458,000 to the home, and none to the foreign market; in 1874, 1,650,000 to the home, and none to the foreign market; in 1875, 1,600,000 and odd to the home market, and 86,000 to the foreign—a very large increase—and, in 1876, about 1,500,000 to the home, and 40,000 to the foreign market. Now, in the absence of information from the City, he had made calculations himself as to the amount of tolls received by the Corporation for cattle at the present time; and he found that, taking as his basis the numbers of 1877, there were landed at Deptford in that year about 68,000 cattle at 5s. a-head, 700,000 sheep at 9d. a-piece, and 10,000 swine at 1s. each. That being so, he found that the figures would stand at £17,000 received within the year at Deptford alone for cattle; at £26,000 for sheep; and at about £1,000 for swine—the receipts in the shape of rents being £2,000. The Committee would, therefore, see that the receipts of the Corporation at the foreign market alone during one year—and these would be their future receipts, even supposing that no greater restrictions were imposed with regard to the slaughter of foreign cattle—amounted to no less a sum than £46,000. If, then, the Corporation, should say that they were losing money by the markets, he hoped they would state how much they were losing by the Islington, and how much they were making by the Deptford Market; because it was, he contended, absurd and grossly unfair to take into the account the street improvements which had been made, and the hotels which had been erected at Islington. Taking Deptford by itself, it brought the City, as he had already shown, £46,000 a-year, while the expenses were, so far as he could make out—interest and sinking fund, about £12,500 a-year; annual expenses, £5,000; giving a total of £17,500, which would leave an annual profit of something like £29,000 at Deptford alone. That profit, it appeared, the City received under the following circumstances:—The Corporation had informed the Committee of last year that it was not their intention

  1731
  to derive a profit from their markets, and that they wished to keep the tolls at so low a rate as would merely recoup them for their outlay, and no more. But in those tolls there would never, he maintained, be any reduction so long as the charges at Islington and Deptford continued to be lumped together. Taking Deptford by itself, at which there was a profit of £29,000 a-year, it was perfectly evident that the Corporation could afford to reduce their charges; and he would, therefore, on some future occasion, move the adoption of a new Schedule of charges. The very Schedule upon which he had fixed was, he might add, that contained in the Conservative Government Bill of 1868, to which were attached the names of the noble Lord the Member for Westmeath (Lord Robert Montagu) and the late Mr. Hunt. That Schedule, in his opinion, embodied a very reasonable proposal with respect to the charges which should, in future, be made at Deptford. As things at present stood, there were no signs of concession on the part of the City; though he, for one, was prepared to enter into a compromise, if the Corporation would only come forward and say that they would contribute to the Metropolitan tolls. But if they would neither accept any such compromise nor reduce their charges at Deptford, he should feel it to be his duty to continue his opposition to the present state of things, and it was with that object that he begged to move his Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, to leave out from the word "provisions," in line 40, to the word "animals," in line 43, inclusive.—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. ALDERMAN COTTONwished, in reply to the hon. Baronet who had just sat down, to point out that he was labouring under a mistake in supposing that the Corporation of the City of London ought not to have the control of the markets. It was absolutely necessary that some good working authority should exercise that control over the whole of the Metropolitan markets; and he defied anyone to prove that in any way the Corporation had abused the trust which
  1732
  had been reposed in them. The hon. Baronet had argued that it was unfair to lump together the receipts at the two markets of Islington and Deptford; but he, on the other hand, was prepared to maintain that it was most fair that both accounts should be dealt with. The Corporation, he might add, had no pecuniary interest in those markets, which existed for the public convenience and the public good. As to the vast profits which the hon. Baronet said were made at Deptford, he would beg to inform him and the Committee that the total loss at the close of the year 1876 on account of all the markets within the jurisdiction of the City of London—including tolls, charges, rents, &c.—amounted to £171,955. [Sir CHARLES W. DILKE: Not for one year.] That was the total loss up to the end of 1876, and included all the charges from the time of the opening of the Metropolitan Cattle Market and the Foreign Cattle Market at Deptford; so that, at the present moment, the Corporation was considerably out of pocket on account of those markets. The hon. Baronet had said that the Corporation had included in the cost of its markets the outlay upon several new roads and upon buildings in the markets; but it was only fair and proper to debit them with that expenditure. The Metropolitan Cattle Market had been erected in Copenhagen Fields, which had been adapted to the purposes of a market; and if proper approaches had not been made to it, and other necessary accommodation provided, it would, instead of a success, have turned out to be a failure. The money expended upon it had been laid out for the public convenience and good, and he did not know that the Corporation had ever worked in any other sense. If it were possible to reduce the rates and charges in the markets, the public might rely upon it that would be done, for the Corporation never acted illiberally. He could not understand, he must confess, why those attacks were made upon them. As matters stood, it was absolutely necessary that there should be some control of the markets, and surely it was better that that control should be left with the Corporation than that it should be handed over to some new and ambitious body, which might be desirous of possessing it. Would it not be wiser to leave it in

  1733
  the hands of a body whose increase of income was likely always to be accompanied by additional public improvements, and who laboured for the advantage of the citizens at large? And when he spoke of the Corporation, he wished to be understood as speaking of the City, with hundreds of thousands of human beings constantly passing through it, and of its enormous daily population of nearly 750,000. It was to provide for the health and good accommodation of that immense concourse of people that all the great improvements in buildings, sewerage, and with respect to markets, were carried out by the Corporation; and, although the hon. Baronet was of opinion that their gains were enormous, he could assure the Committee that, on the contrary, their loss, as he had already pointed out, on those markets was very great. It was true that the hon. Baronet had given him Notice that he intended to put a Question to him on the subject. But he had given it to him only on the previous morning; and, although he was the senior Member for the City of London, he was not the Member for the Corporation. He might at once say, however, that the Corporation had nothing to conceal, and if the hon. Baronet would move for Returns specifying the items of cost and income of all the markets under their control, the Corporation would, he had no doubt, immediately proceed to prepare such a Return and present it to him for the use of the House. He could not himself at the moment supply the information for which the hon. Baronet asked; and, indeed, the demand for it had been so sudden as to suggest the idea that the thought of the Amendment had occurred to him so suddenly, that he had not time to make his calculations so accurately and profoundly as he had no doubt the hon. Baronet would otherwise have done. As to lumping the markets together, surely the Corporation were entitled to take that course? Why should the City be called upon, out of its funds, to keep up a market which was not a paying one? As regarded the figures that had been given to the House that day, he was not in a position to answer them; but he could say that the total loss to the City from the opening of the markets to the close of last year was £170,195. The public was their creditor, and any
  1734
  injustice done to the City would be an injustice done to the public. He hoped, therefore, that the House would respect, as it always had done, the confidence which it had placed in the City of London. He hoped they would look upon this Amendment as an unnecessary and frivolous one, one which was put to turn away citizens from the good work they were doing; for assuredly Parliament could not expect them to keep on paying without giving them an opportunity of recouping. As far as the City was concerned, the Corporation never spent public money even on the hospitality for which they were so famous. Their hospitality was defrayed out of private funds as well as contributions to useful purposes. He hoped that the House would reject this Amendment, and would consider it unnecessary and frivolous, and one which would take away from the credit which the City of London had derived from all its works and by all its examples.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he wanted to avoid their getting into any long discussion as to the relation of the City of London to the rest of the Metropolis. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Alderman Cotton) had just made some defence of the City. He had stated that they had a great loss. The hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had stated that they had great profit. It would take the House a long time to ascertain on which side the profit and loss went, and would interfere with their going on. The course the Government should have taken was one leaving matters between the City and the Metropolis as they were before the Bill was brought in. He was really surprised that the Secretary to the Treasury should have allowed the Representatives of the City to get behind him and put in Subsection 2. Sub-section 2 altered the position of the City to the Metropolis. It said—
  ''The City of London and the Liberties thereof shall be exempt from contributing for purposes of this Act to the Metropolitan Consolidated rate."
  It looked at first sight plausible that they should not pay their own rates and those of the Metropolis as well. But that would bring up the whole question of their having their own markets and the Metropolitan Markets as well—not merely the foreign but the home cattle markets in the Metropolis, He did not

  1735
  think they should be surprised if the rest of the Metropolis should say—"As you have this control and do not desire to get rid of it, and as you have so very much to do with the cattle trade, and, in fact, are responsible for it over the whole of this great City, you should pay your share of the rates." He did not see why the House should have this question. Why should they be troubled with it? Why should there have been any change made from the former Act? If the Government were willing to leave things as they found them, and withdraw Sub-section 2, his hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea would, perhaps, not push his Amendment. He was not surprised that it had been proposed; but it would oblige them to go into a discussion of the exact position of the City, and it seemed to him that, in the interests of the Bill, that was not desirable. He would suggest that the Government should withdraw Sub-section 2.
  MR. RITCHIEhoped the Government would assent to this proposition. The proposal of the hon. Baronet to withdraw the markets from the Corporation was not one which he could give his assent to. He was persuaded, however, that the hon. Baronet did not attach so much importance to that point as he did to the proposed change exempting the City from contributing to the Metropolitan rate. He (Mr. Ritchie) certainly would protest, in the strongest manner, against exempting them from contributing to the Metropolitan rate; and if the Government would give some pledge that that should not be the case, he had no doubt the hon. Baronet would withdraw his Amendment. Why the City should be exempted he could not understand. They would make their own rate and would contribute next to nothing.
  MR. ALDERMAN COTTONsaid, that hon. Members ought to bear in mind that the City only claimed exemption from contributing to the Metropolitan Board of Works for the purposes of this Act. If the markets remained in the hands of the City, the Metropolitan Board would have nothing to do with this work. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) spoke of due contribution to the Metropolitan Board of Works. That was impossible by the Act, because the Corporation had so many claims upon themselves within
  1736
  themselves. The Corporation of the City of London was exempted, and was allowed to maintain its rights and privileges, and within itself had the power of raising its own rates. He could not see why, except for some mischievous purpose, the City should be asked to contribute to the Metropolitan Board of Works. He did not know what claim that Board had on them, or what sum they would have to contribute. Therefore, he hoped the House would not ask the Government to withdraw this clause, but would ask them most firmly to maintain and keep it.
  SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTHsaid, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Alderman Cotton) had addressed the Committee a second time, but had not noticed what had been said by the hon. Member. He had not noticed the fact that the City of London had a monopoly of the markets of this Metropolis. While the City of London enjoyed that privilege, and excluded from the enjoyment of that privilege all the rest of the Metropolis, surely it was fair that the City should contribute handsomely to the expenses of the rest of the Metropolis. If the Government persisted in retaining Subsection 2, the City should be prepared to give some return for that concession. He would suggest that Her Majesty's Government should take up the question of the monopoly of the markets in the City of London, so that markets should be set up in various parts of the Metropolis. No greater boon could be conferred upon the poor of the Metropolis than that there should be markets within the reach of all. If he might offer a piece of advice to the hon. Member for the City of London, he should say that he would be ill-advised in pressing opposition to any proposal short of taking away any of the privileges of the City of London. He hoped, if the Government did persevere, they would seriously consider the propriety of getting something from the City in return.
  MR. CHARLEYsaid, the proposal of the hon. Baronet was that the City should pay twice over—first, its own expenses, and, secondly, those of the Metropolis inside the City. The Amendment would involve a distinct breach of faith. The City of London had been for centuries the market authority. All that

  1737
  was proposed by the Bill was that the Corporation of London alone should continue to be the market authority for the Metropolis; but that, for all other purposes, the Metropolitan Board of Works should, outside the City, be the local authority. If the Amendment were carried, it would amount to this—that the City should not be their own local authority over their own market at Deptford, and that would be most unfair.
  MR. W. H. JAMESsaid, that the hon. Member for the City of London had observed that the City deserved consideration, because it had so many just claims. That meant that it had so many beans in its fields. He did hope that it would not be necessary that they should raise, on this part of the discussion, the whole question of the monopoly of markets at present possessed by the City of London, and which, he thought, existed without any fair reason whatever. He was at a loss to conceive why the 2nd sub-section had been inserted in the Bill; and if the Government made no concession, so far as to accept the proposal of the right hon. Member for Bradford, he must say it would be necessary to have further discussion with regard to monopoly of markets.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, the Committee was not a little confused by the fact that these two sections, which hinged upon each other, had got a little obscured in the discussion. There were really two propositions mixed up in this question. He should like to separate distinctly the two proposals. The first proposal which the hon. Baronet made, which was the question before them, was that they should deprive the City of what they possessed now by old Charter right—which was, in reality, the power of regulating the municipality of the town and the markets of the town. He would remind the Committee that when this power was given, the City of London was really the municipality of London, and as such, these powers were intrusted to them. No one had reason to say that these powers had not been well and properly administered by them. The second proposal of the hon. Baronet was to remove Sub-section 2, which was to relieve the City from rates for the purposes of this Act in regard to the whole Metropolis. As he understood, the law, up to the
  1738
  present moment the City of London had, at all events, representation, on the Metropolitan Board, and had contributed to the rates levied under the Act of 1869 relating to the diseases of animals; and the proposal in the sub-section was to relieve them from the contributory rate, on the ground that the City enjoyed a separate jurisdiction. It was said that if this sub-section was not agreed to the City would have to pay twice over. With regard to the second proposal of the hon. Baronet, he understood that he intended to propose that the rates at present levied for the different markets held in the City of London, Copenhagen Fields—commonly called Islington Market—and Deptford Market, should be altered, and that the tolls at Deptford, at present regulated by the City, should be regulated by Statute. On that point, he would like to put before the Committee a statement of the manner in which these tolls originally arose. The cattle market, as hon. Members were aware, used to exist in Smithfield. When it was found necessary to abandon Smithfield Market and set up a new market, pressure was brought to bear on the authorities of the City to oblige them to make that new market. It was to provide for future increase in the cattle trade that that market was constituted by the City, and especially with a view of dealing with the importation of cattle. Pressure was afterwards brought to bear on the City to compel them to set up Deptford Market. The argument of the City was—"You are going to take from us some of the cattle which at present go to our Copenhagen Market. You will diminish thereby the receipts, and we therefore ask you to give us the right to set up exceptional rates for the trade that is to be brought into Deptford." There could be no doubt that the City, under the compulsion of the Act then put upon them, were put to large expenditure, and were obliged to lay out a large sum of money in creating a market at Deptford. Beyond that, they had heard the senior Alderman stating that the loss since 1869, up to the 1st of January last, which he (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) could confirm, was £171,955. Now, he thought all this showed that the Committee would do well to hesitate before they consented either to remove or to improve on the authority the House gave

  1739
  to the City for carrying out and controlling the markets which they had held for an unlimited time by Charter, especially when they saw, by looking at the figures presented to the House, that the Corporation were considerable losers by the markets. He confessed that, from his own point of view, there was much to be said against the non-contributory powers of the City; and he thought the suggestion thrown out by his right hon. Friend the ex-Vice President of the Council (Mr. W. E. Forster) was one that the Government could fairly accept. That was that they should stand by the existing state of things with regard to the rights of the City of London and the controlling of these markets, and that they should not interfere with the Schedules of prices, which had been really the results of Acts, forced upon them by the creation of the markets. Under these circumstances, if the Committee were of the same opinion as the right hon. Gentleman, he should propose to omit the sub-section, and ask the Committee to adhere to the Bill on the other points.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that as the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury did not agree with his third proposal, it was quite impossible that he could accept the suggestion which had just been made. The Committee had been placed in a difficult position through discussing the second Amendment on the first; and he thought, with all submission to the Committee, that he could not very well separate the two. He had not gone into the case at all upon the second. It was not necessary that he should go into the case, because the Government had given up the clause to allow the City to get off without payment of Metropolitan rates.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsubmitted that they were entering on a case which might be fraught with future embarrassment to the progress of the Bill. They had a representation from Liverpool that there was no convenient market for the purposes of the Bill; and if they now decided that the City of London, which had undertaken to provide markets, should after all their expenditure be deprived of the means of recouping themselves, it would be but poor encouragement to Liverpool and others to provide accommodation. It was quite probable that neither the hon. Baronet the Mem-
  1740
  ber for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke), nor the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Alderman Cotton), who represented the City, was prepared to go into detail and to discuss the matter on this Amendment. He trusted, therefore, that the Secretary to the Treasury would postpone this clause, if he did not abandon it. He would prefer very much to see it postponed, because he did not wish to see difficulties arising in London and elsewhere.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, he was not a Member for the City of London, and it was not his business to defend the City of London. The City had four Members, and they ought to be present. Still, he was a Metropolitan Member, and he knew some of the facts. He held that it was convenient the City of London should have the markets. He remembered when an attempt was made to establish a market in Bethnal Green; but it would not pay, and it was shut up. Another was tried at Hungerford, and it was shut up. They might as well try to move the House of Commons, or to move London, as to move a market. They could not move Mark Lane; that was the Market for corn. They could not move Mincing Lane, which was the market for tea and sugar. It was true that the City had lost £171,000 by the Islington Market. He remembered the day when Members rose to denounce the folly of not moving the market from Smithfield. Now, when it was removed from there, hon. Members complained of the change. He denied that the money spent was spent on hotels and streets. Some streets had to be made; for what was the use of a market if they could not get to it? But this was a small part of the cost. The Act of Parliament gave the City power to do certain things, and they did those things in good faith; and he would say to his Friends who were so anxious to get a new market and a new Corporation that he should be inclined to be rather conservative in that matter. He would recommend things, in reference to the taxation under this Bill, to stand as they were without change.
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGbelieved the general public feeling was in favour of no change in the existing law. The City of London should not be exempt from contributing their share of the expense incurred by the Metropolitan Board of Works in respect of cattle affected by disease within the Metropolis. The City,

  1741
  he might remark, had not 100 cows kept within its area; whereas, in the Metropolis, there were many thousands. It gave him great satisfaction to find that a concession was being made to the Metropolis at large.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, as the Government had given way on Sub-section 2, he hoped his hon. Friend would not persist in his proposal to strike out sub-section 1. He did not think, on the other hand, that it would be fair to make any promise with regard to the Schedule. [Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: No, no!] He was glad to hear that. They might say, in fact, that sufficient for the clause were the concessions thereof. On the Schedule they could discuss the arguments of the hon. Baronet, and very strong arguments they were.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he could not agree to the passing of this sub-section, because he had the very strongest possible objection to the monopoly given to the City. He was only prepared to withdraw his Amendment on the City undertaking to withdraw their charges, and, as that had been refused, he must take a division. The hon. Baronet the Member for Finsbury (Sir Andrew Lusk) said the City had no monopoly. So far was that from the fact that they had the most absolute monopoly that could be conceived. No person, except he were a representative of the City, could erect any market in any portion of the Metropolis, or within a certain distance of it. Then it was said that the City had lost £171,000 by their markets. In answer to that, he had successfully proved—and the figures were not controverted by the hon. Member for the City (Mr. Alderman Cotton)—that the City were making a profit at the rate of £29,000 a-year at Deptford. It was true that at Islington they had sunk a great deal of money in street improvements, and if they deducted the interest on the money so spent, it might swallow up the profit on the market at Deptford. He contended, however, that they should keep the accounts separate, and then they would find that a large profit was made in a manner which was described before the Select Committee by a witness especially sent up by the Chamber of Agriculture. He said—
  "The Corporation charged very heavy rents, and they also made the enormous charge for
  1742
  landing of 5s. per bullock. That seemed to him a most serious tax upon meat, which must fall, finally, upon the consumer."
  Those words were his case, and he should very strongly oppose the continuance of this monopoly to the City, unless the City was prepared to reduce its charges.
  M. W. E. FORSTERsaid, if Subsection 2 had not been given up, he should have felt bound to vote with his hon. Friend. But as that sub-section had been withdrawn, he felt he must vote against the Amendment.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 264; Noes 69: Majority 195.—(Div. List, No. 222.)
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he did not propose to move the next Amendment, because the division just taken showed that the Committee was in favour of maintaining the monopoly enjoyed by the City. He would therefore propose the new sub-section, namely—
  "(iii.) The maximum tolls, dues, and payments that may be taken at the Deptford Cattle Market, shall be those specified in Schedule 3 to this Act."
  As he had shown, the greatest possible objection was felt by large firms of butchers and salesmen, and others engaged in the cattle trade, to the charges levied by the Corporation at Deptford. The witness sent by the Central Chamber of Agriculture, whose evidence before the Council he had quoted, had, for instance, declared that these charges were monstrously too high. He thought some objection might be raised to this Motion, reducing tolls and charges, being put forward by a private Member, and he should not have proposed it had he not found an exact precedent in the case of other Bills. The Schedule he proposed was taken from the Bill, brought in in 1868 by the noble Lord the Member for Westmeath (Lord Robert Montagu) and Mr. Hunt. He himself thought that the charges fixed in that Schedule were too high; but he had accepted these, because they had been proposed by those hon. Members, because they were the most moderate propositions to which he could possibly agree, and because, before proposing them, the figures were most carefully examined by Mr. Hunt. At the same time, as he thought, the figures were too high, if

  1743
  there were any feeling that they ought to be lowered, he should willingly agree to it. The charges at present were divided into two parts. There was a charge for rent and market charges, and a charge for lairage, fixed at so much for so many days. He, of course, put all the charges into one sum; but he did not allow so many days' lairage; and, therefore, if the animals were detained for several days, the charge would be about the same.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAY, in seconding the Amendment, said, his contention was that there was a separate contract between the House and the City as to this Deptford Market, and it was that if the City, within a certain time, erected this market, they should be allowed to make certain charges in respect to it. But that contract was subject to the understanding that the House should have the power of revising these rates if they were found to be insufficient, or to be too much. Now that they were dealing with these foreign animals, it was a proper time to revise these charges, and put them on a proper footing. The charges contained in the Bill of 1868 would, practically, he thought, amount to the same price as was charged at present. The City took 5s. per head, which included lairage for 10 days. By the Schedule, the lairage for 10 days at the prices fixed would be 2s. 6d., and wharfage rent, &c., would make another 2s. 6d. Therefore, he would suggest an Amendment on the Amendment of his hon. Friend, and make the 2s. 6d. include lairage for three days, all time afterwards being charged at the rate proposed in the Bill. These charges would, he thought, be fairer to all parties, and while not actually reducing the maximum charges the City of London would be entitled to make, would adapt the charges to the accommodation afforded in the different cases. No doubt, one of the arguments against the slaughter of cattle at the port of debarkation was that the charges at Deptford were so high—higher than they were at Copenhagen Fields.
  MR. ALDERMAN COTTONthought any sudden attempt to alter the Schedule of charges unwise, and certainly beside the question with which they were really called upon to deal. The Corporation had borrowed £250,000 against these tolls, and for the payment of the
  1744
  interest on the bonds it looked to those tolls, which the Legislature had allowed them to receive. The Committee ought not to allow themselves to be carried away by the figures of the hon. Baronet. The net profit of the foreign market at Deptford last year was £11,000, and not the amount stated by the hon. Member for Chelsea. Against that sum there was £9,000, which they would have to spend this year on improvements. That would bear out what he said, that whatever the City got it really went to the improvement of something which was for the good of the citizens. In regard to the hotels built at the new Cattle Market at Islington, he had to admit that they were failures as hotels; but they had been converted into model dwellings for the poor, and were now let to artizans and labourers at very cheap rents. He hoped the Government would not allow so serious an alteration as that now proposed to take place as the result of a discussion of this kind.
  MR. MUNDELLAhoped hon. Members on both sides of the House would support the Amendment. They had evidence before them last year which showed that the rates were excessive. He would cite the evidence of Mr. Silvester, of the Central Chamber of Commerce, who said that the rates charged by the Corporation were very heavy; that they charged an enormous rate on landing—namely, 5s.; and that this was a serious tax on meat, which must eventually fall on the consumer. The hon. Alderman who represented the City of London (Mr. Alderman Cotton) said the net profit last year was only £11,000, and that they would have to expend £9,000 this year upon extensions and improvements. But surely he did not expect to charge extensions and improvements to the revenue account of a single year? That was a matter of capital account, and there was no doubt these works would lead to a large increase in income. He wished the Committee to understand that this was not a question exclusively affecting the City of London or the Metropolis. It was one affecting the whole of the Kingdom. A large revenue was to be derived from these markets, and that fact might affect his constituents quite as much as the people of the Metropolis, since it was in evidence that these charges influenced the excessive charges for meat; and he did hope that the Go-

  1745
  vernment would take care to protect the Provinces—because it was to the Government they must look for the protection—against what everyone admitted was an excessive rate.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONcould not consent in this way to upset an agreement come to with the City of London at a time when the Corporation was compelled to erect this market. At that time, in consequence of the establishment of the market at Deptford, the City of London was put to a loss with reference to other cattle accommodation which they had provided. It had been stated by the hon. Baronet that the evidence before the Committee went to show that a very large increase would take place in the income derived from the tolls taken at Deptford, and he added that the amount was estimated before the Committee to reach £50,000 a-year. But that calculation was framed on the idea that the whole foreign trade was going to be slaughtered at the port of Deptford. There would be, no doubt, a large increase in the market receipts if there was to be a large investment in the cattle going there. But what were the real facts? They knew that in consequence of the severe restrictions of the last 18 months against cattle imported from countries where cattle plague was known to exist, there was a large increase in the numbers slaughtered there. But if the suggestion made that day were carried out, the whole of this increase might, very probably, upon foreign countries becoming clean, disappear; at least a large portion of the import would be withdrawn from Deptford. That brought them to the real position of the City. When the market had to be constructed, the Corporation said—"You must give us exceptional tolls in this place, because you force us to make markets of great extent without insuring us a certain trade or certain receipts." He desired to recall the attention of hon. Members to the evidence given before the Committee on the idea suggested by the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella). Mr. Rudkin, who spoke with considerable weight as representing the City, and knowing the management of the markets, was closely examined on the point by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. E. Forster); and if hon. Members would refer to Question 9,068, they would find that he there
  1746
  stated that the 5s. comprised the wharfage, the 10 days which the cattle might stay, and, in reality, when they looked at the charge at Islington Market, recollecting that no wharves had to be charged there for landing the cattle, and that, in other respects, it was exempt from expenditure inevitable at Deptford, the respective amounts would come to identically the same. Taking all these facts into consideration, along with the uncertainty of the trade, he thought the Government were justified in resisting any alteration of the terms.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERwas glad to find, from the remarks of his hon. Friend, that he looked forward to the concession the Government was going to make as likely very much to increase the number of live animals brought into the country. He thought the question as to the charges at Deptford should be put off to a later stage of the Bill. No doubt, the City would continue to charge the maximum they were entitled to charge, and it was a question calling for consideration whether these maximum rates were too high, He did not know that his hon. Friend (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had proved his case; but, at any rate, he had made out a strong primâ facie case, and the Government ought to be careful to look into the matter, and be careful to consider it at a further stage of the Bill. The evidence given by Mr. Rudkin—who was a very able man and very conversant with the subject—had been alluded to by the Secretary to the Treasury. But that gentleman said, in addition to what had been quoted, that if the revenue of the Corporation from Deptford increased largely, and if it was considered desirable that there should be a reduction in the charges, he was quite sure the Corporation would be prepared to listen to the suggestion. He said—
  "In fact, you will remember when these charges were originally fixed, it was understood they were simply to be for two or three years, to see how they worked."
  The principle was that the markets were to pay a fair interest on the outlay upon them, and not that the experimental and maximum charges should be maintained. Now, Mr. Rudkin admitted that Deptford should stand upon its own position; but in solving the question whether the City made or lost, they would have to consider the number of cattle taken to

  1747
  Islington Market. They knew from the Returns that 67,817 cattle were landed at Deptford in 1877; and at 5s. a-head, that would represent an income of £16,954; and 700,000 sheep at 9d., representing some £26,000; and with the revenue from swine, and taking the rent into consideration, it would be found that the income from Deptford last year amounted to over £45,000. Their informant, a man of great experience, told them that the expenses at Deptford Market, including interest on cost of building, were not more than £17,000 a-year, which left a profit of £28,000 last year. That was irrespective of anything the Bill might do. Now, that, he thought, was rather a strong primâ facie case for re-consideration; and if he were in the position of his hon. Friend (Sir Charles W. Dilke), he should ask the Government to give an undertaking that they would carefully examine into the matter before the Report was brought up. He thought they could not do less, and if they did that, he should advise the withdrawal of the Amendment.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, the defence for the high rates was the uncertainty of the trade, and the large outlay incurred in erecting the market. He would like to ask the Committee to consider the effect of this defence on Clause 37, under which other communities besides that of London were expected to provide wharves and other conveniences. What would be the consequence if they were to be told that they were to lay out a large amount for a very uncertain trade? They would either decline to erect wharves at all, or would adopt a scale of charges as high as that at Deptford, and the general result would be that that high scale would become stereotyped over the whole country. It was the interest of the whole country to have a low scale adopted. Supposing Provincial towns to invest large sums of money in these markets, how were they to be recouped except by putting heavy charges in some way upon the dead meat? He hoped a moderately low scale would be fixed for Deptford, and one which might become uniform throughout the whole country.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONthought the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) was leading the Committee away from the real issue. The
  1748
  hon. Gentleman argued as if wharves and other costly works would become necessary under the Bill in all the large towns. He seemed to have forgotten the alteration assented to by the Government. It was very much to be doubted whether the result of the Bill would be to create, to any extent at all, a necessity for increased wharfage in towns and cities such as the city represented by the hon. Gentleman. The point clearly turned upon whether excessive profits were derived from Deptford Market. It was stated—and he apprehended that here there could be no doubt—that the uncertainty of the trade at Deptford Market rendered it very difficult to fix any very low scale of charges to meet the expenses of that market. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) had stated the expenses at £17,000; but he seemed to forget that over and above that there was the interest which had to be paid on the outlay incurred in erecting the market, and this interest amounted to £12,000. The question depended not merely upon whether the revenue would meet the working expenses and interest; but they should also have to inquire in how far cattle, for which provision was made at Deptford, had been diverted to other markets. He was quite willing to adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman; and, although he had already carefully gone into the figures, and had heard a good deal of evidence with regard to the tolls, during the sittings of the Committee which inquired into the general subject, he had no objection to giving the City an opportunity of showing that the profits they derived from the tolls were not excessive, if that were really the case, having regard to all the charges incident to the maintenance of the establishment. Judging from the statement of Mr. Rudkin, he thought the presumption was that the City itself, if it could reverse its bye-laws without incurring a loss which it ought not to bear, would do so, and reduce the tolls, if the income they yielded was in excess of the requirements it was bound to provide for.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYreminded the Committee that toll at Deptford on bullocks was 10 times that charged at Islington, while on sheep it was eight times as large. It would be easy to ascertain the sum of money which the

  1749
  City of London would have got if the foreign cattle had gone to Islington Market; and, altogether, he thought the case clear in favour of a reduction—unless, indeed, they sanctioned the view of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Alderman Cotton), and allowed the charge that ought to be met out of the capital account to be placed against revenue—in which case it would be very easy to make out a loss on the markets. The question was, what were the fair expenses requisite for carrying on Deptford Market? This, he thought, was the proper time for revising these tolls.
  MR. ALDERMAN COTTONdid not see how, in any of these calculations, they could ignore the fact that the Corporation of the City of London had been put to the loss of £172,000 upon its markets.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEthought the hon. Alderman bound to give the data upon which his figures were founded, just as he gave the basis of his calculations—namely, the Government Returns of the animals imported. He wished to remind the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), that in the £17,000, at which he estimated the expenses of the market, he included the interest, put down at the sum of £12,000.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONunderstood the estimate to be £17,000 plus the interest.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the working expenses were £4,500, and the interest 12,500.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, that in dealing with this question, it was necessary to take the Returns for a series of years. If there was a surplus from the tolls of one year, it would be a dangerous thing to say that, therefore, the tolls should be reduced. So far as he understood the case, the City authorities had pledged these tolls as a security for the expenses they had been put to; and in dealing with the tolls in the manner suggested, they might be seriously prejudicing the interests of the creditors.
  MR. DODSONwould like to have a distinct answer from some actual authority on the subject as to the statement that the lenders had no security except the tolls. Was that so or not? Apart from that particular question, he wanted to know in what position they would be placed if the Amendment of the hon.
  1750
  Baronet the Member for Chelsea was rejected. He understood it had been admitted, on behalf of the City of London, that there was no kind of guarantee or understanding that the tolls were to be continued for a fixed period of years; on the contrary, that they were to be open to revision. Now, if they let this opportunity pass of securing a consideration whether they ought to be revised or not, were they not letting slip on opportunity which might not easily recur again? He wanted to know what the Secretary to the Treasury had undertaken to do in this matter? A suggestion was made by the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) that these tolls might be considered between this and the Report. He did not understand that the Secretary to the Treasury had given any distinct undertaking on that subject; but if he had, what was it? Was he going to approach the consideration of the tolls for the purpose of revising them; or was he only giving a sort of general assurance that they should be considered, and that nothing more was to come of it? The proper opportunity for considering and revising tolls was while they were in Committee on the Bill. If they once let the Bill get out of Committee, they could not, even though they wished to do so, revise the tolls on the Report. If, therefore, anything was to be done in the way of revision of these tolls, they ought to have an understanding that it should be done in Committee. If they rejected the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea, they would have no undertaking to that effect; and it would be rather unusual to bring up a Schedule on the subject when nothing had been said in the enacting part of the Bill about such a Schedule. Unless the Secretary to the Treasury would undertake to bring up a new clause and a Schedule of tolls before the Bill was out of Committee, or give some assurance on the subject, he should be prepared to vote in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONdid not wish the Committee to divide without a clear knowledge of what he stated he would do. What he had stated was that he had gone carefully into this case, and that he believed the tolls, however exceptionally high they might

  1751
  be considered, could not be looked upon as a counterpart for the expense the City was put to for the creation and maintenance of this particular market. Such was his impression, and therefore it was that no alteration of the tolls had been proposed in this Bill. But if it could be shown that the receipts were sufficient to justify a change in the scale of tolls, taking into consideration the question of loss to the Corporation by the removal of the cattle from the original market, then he should be prepared to alter the Bill so as to provide for a reduction of the tolls.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINcould not help thinking that the hon. Baronet already possessed sufficient information to enable him to say whether the tolls charged by the City were excessive or not. He could not understand why Parliament should treat the City of London in a different way to that in which it treated other Corporations. How did it deal, for instance, with Gas and Water Companies when they came to the House and asked to raise additional capital? In every case there was a clause inserted prohibiting them from making more than 6 per cent in the case of Water, and 7 per cent in the case of Gas Companies. The other day, the great Corporation of Manchester came to Parliament to ask for powers to enable them to supply their district with water, and it was actually imposed upon them that they should only obtain 4½ or 5 per cent for their outlay from other local bodies whom they were to supply. The hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Alderman Cotton) admitted that last year they got a net profit of £11,000 or £12,000, in addition to the interest and sinking fund, which amounted to another £12,000. [Mr. Alderman COTTON: £9,000 of that had to be spent this year.] The hon. Member admitted there was an absolute net profit of £11,000. They could not reckon the net profit until they had paid the necessary expenses for interest to the persons who lent the money and to the sinking fund. It was given in evidence before the Committee that the total sum expended by the City was £235,000, and anybody could calculate that the sinking fund upon that amount would come to between £11,000 and £12,000 altogether; and the City, were making, according to their own admission, some-
  1752
  thing like £23,000 per annum. Those two sums amounted to about 10 per cent on the capital expended; and what he wanted to know was, why Manchester should be tied down to only 4½ per cent, when the City of London made 10 per cent? The proof that the tolls were excessive was contained in another fact which was given before the Committee—namely, that they were something like eight times as high as they were at the Islington Market. This difference was, in a great measure, due to the fact of a misapprehension. The maximum charge was fixed, as it allowed 10 days' lairage for cattle and other animals; whereas the majority of cattle did not remain in lairage for 10 days. He urged that these tolls should be reduced, and the City not allowed to make an excessive profit.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERthought his hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea ought to accept the offer of the Secretary to the Treasury. They knew that the Government could get a majority on this question, and if the hon. Baronet went to a division he would be defeated. The Secretary to the Treasury had declared that he would look into the question, and if he found the facts were as stated, that he would introduce a clause dealing with the matter. It would be better for his hon. Friend to accept that assurance, and withdraw his Amendment.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that, under the circumstances, he would withdraw not only the Amendment now under consideration, but also the next one which stood in his name on the Paper.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
  House adjourned at five minutes before Six o'clock.