Commons Sitting of 31 July 1878

MINUTES.
— SELECT COMMITTEE — Report — Parliamentary Reporting [No. 327]; Gold and Silver (Hall Marking) [No. 328]; Watch Cases Hall Marking.
PUBLIC BILLS — Ordered — First Reading— Metropolitan Commons * [287].
Second Reading— Locomotives on Highways (Scotland) * [271]; Consolidated Fund (No. 4) *; Disqualification of Medical Relief Removal* [282].
Committee—Bishoprics [197], debate adjourned.
Committee—Report—Contagious Diseases (Animals) [204-286]; Prison (Officers' Super-
778
annuation) * [269]; Statute Law Revision (Ireland) * [122].
Considered as amended—British Museum (Transfer of Collection) * [236].
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Elders Widows' Fund * [226], and passed.
Third Reading — Duke of Connaught and of Strathearne (Establishment) [277]; Prisons Authorities Act (1874) Amendment* [246], and passed.
Withdrawn — Wormwood Scrubs Regulation * [243].

QUESTION.
  THE WAR AND INDIA OFFICES.

    QUESTION.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he intends to move that the entry in the Journal, dated 14th August, 1877, directing the Papers relating to the settlement of large Claims between the War and India Offices to be printed, and to receive a Sessional Number, 419, be cancelled; and, if so, when the often-promised Papers about the large and long-outstanding claims will be made known to Parliament?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, in reply, said, he had endeavoured on Monday last to explain the state of things existing in reference to the Correspondence referred to. He then stated that in consequence of the Papers not being completed, it was not thought advisable to present a portion of them to the House. He had, however, presented one Paper with an explanation regarding the subject, and the hon. and gallant Baronet would find in the Appendix to the Report of the Public Accounts Committee a Treasury Minute explaining the whole state of the case as carried out and adopted by the India Office and the War Office, with the sanction of the Treasury.

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.

    DUKE OF CONNATTGHTAND OF STRATH-EARNE (ESTABLISHMENT) BILL.
    (Mr. Raikes, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Cross, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
    [BILL 277.] THIRD READING.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    MR. PLIMSOLL, in moving that the Bill be read a third time that day three months, said, he wished to explain his reason for doing so, and for the vote he had given in favour of the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) the other day. The present was not the first time by several that a measure of this kind had been brought before the House to make provision for a younger Member of the Royal Family. On all previous occasions since he had obtained a seat in that House he had gladly voted with the majority for acceding to Her Majesty's wish; but more than once he had had to defend his vote before a portion of his constituents, who preferred, in the abstract, a Republican form of Government to any other. On those occasions he had contended that, so long as we had a Monarchical Government existing in England, it was fitting the dignity of the nation, as well as the Sovereign, that the Royal State should be maintained in suitable splendour. He had also pointed to Her Majesty's personal character, Her quick and ready sympathy with suffering at all times, as was manifested years ago in the case of the Hartley catastrophe, when she sent a telegram to ascertain the extent of the calamity, and more recently in the case of the Pontypridd minors. But the instances of Her Majesty's great kindness of heart, which he felt deeply and gratefully, were too numerous to refer to in detail. He further said that, Tinder a Constitutional Monarchy like that in this country, in his humble opinion, their property and their lives were more safe than they would be under a Republican form of Government—that, at all events, they were saved by it from long turmoils, the interruptions to industry, the stagnation of trade, and the great and immoral expenditure, which the people of the United States, for example, were subjected to on the expiration of every Presidential term of office. In short, he said that the Monarchical form of Government had all the advantages of a Republican form without any of its disadvantages, and with these reasons he had hitherto succeeded in satisfying at least a majority of his constituents. But the latter and the essential point of his contention was all changed. They were now told on high authority that it was within the
    780
    Prerogative of the Crown, and not inconsistent with the Constitution, for the Monarch to pledge the resources and the lives of the people to an unlimited extent, not only without the consent of the nation, but even without its knowledge—as in the case of the recent Convention with Turkey. If these portentous claims were Constitutional and within the Prerogative, they were not living under the Constitution which three short months ago he supposed they were; and, in his humble opinion, the Constitution would have to be altered, and the Prerogative curtailed, and that right speedily, as he felt quite sure that the nation would not suffer their substance and their lives to be bargained away by any individual, however illustrious, good, or great. He would never give a vote of any kind in support, directly or indirectly, of the Monarchy until these portentous claims were authoritatively and finally swept away, and the people's consent, by a vote of their Representatives in Parliament, was made an essential condition and precedent to the ratification of all important Treaties. To vote for the third reading of this Bill would undoubtedly tend to support an institution for which those perilous claims were made—claims which, compared with those of Charles I., were trivial; and he should consider himself as betraying his constituents and the people were he to give his vote for the Bill. Her Majesty had no more warmly-attached and loyal subject than himself, or a more enthusiastic admirer of Her many good and gracious acts of kindness. The vote which he gave on Thursday last, and the course which he felt it his duty to take that day, cost him a great effort and gave him great pain. The claims put forward under the name of Prerogative had compelled him to chose between seeming loyalty to the Queen and fidelity to the people, and feeling, in his case, gave way to principle. Salus populi suprema lex. He could give no more sincere proof of his attachment to Her person and Throne than the step he had taken; for he believed that these amazing and portentous claims were fraught with danger alike to Her Majesty, to Her successors, and to the people.
    MR. BURT, in seconding the Motion, said, he fully agreed in much that had

    781
    fallen from his ton. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll). There was nothing which had struck him more forcibly in connection with this Bill than the great haste with which it had been pushed through its various stages. It was introduced at a very late period of the Session, and scarcely any time had been lost in pressing it forward, as though the fate of the Empire depended upon its speedy passage through Parliament. He made no complaint against the Government on this ground. It was true, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated on the occasion of the introduction of the Bill, that he had strictly followed precedent in this matter; but the precedent he (Mr. Burt) regarded as a very bad one; because, whatever the intentions of the Government in making so much haste might be, the result was to prevent due expression of opinion by means of Petitions, or by means of public meetings outside that House. He could not see why the Bill should be pressed forward with such extraordinary speed. He did not think it one of the kind of measures that was likely to meet with great obstruction in the other House of Parliament. There was a very large section of the community among whom there was a growing feeling and objection against these repeated appeals for allowances to Members of the Royal Family. Already a considerable number of Petitions had been presented to the House of Commons against this particular grant. About two years ago, he presented an enormous Petition against any further grants to Members of the Royal Family until full information was afforded on the subject. It bore no less than 103,000 signatures, and he had to call upon the assistance of his hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) to bring it up to the Table of the House. It asked, as nearly all those Petitions did, for fuller information. It did not positively object to grants of this kind; but it asserted that before they were made, a clear case ought to be made out and the fullest possible information given. Now, he wished to know why this information was not given? Speaking for himself only, he might say there were many pertinent questions put to him on this subject which he could not exactly answer, and he did not know whether
    782
    the Chancellor of the Exchequer would answer them or not. He had been asked whether such a grant was absolutely necessary? Whether, with the present income of the Duke of Connaught, which was somewhere about £15,000 a-year, he could not afford to marry without the addition asked; and, whether, if this additional sum was necessary, Her Majesty the Queen could not afford to help him? Now, these were, in his opinion, very plain and very proper questions; they might be deemed blunt and un courtier-like, but he did not think they were altogether without pertinence to the subject under the consideration of the House. He, for his own part, should like to have fuller information on the matter. He had listened very attentively to what had been said on the subject by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in moving the original Resolution upon it, and, so far as he understood the right hon. Gentleman, he had not even attempted to make out a case of necessity for the grant. It had been admitted that there were no precedents for it until the present reign. There was a precedent in the case of the Duke of Edinburgh; but those who objected to that grant were perfectly justified in still persisting in their opposition to all grants of the kind. Now, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had dwelt on the amiability and accomplishments of the Royal personages who were about to be united in wedlock, and these compliments he (Mr. Burt) was sure were sincere. He had no reason to doubt that they were well-merited; but he did not see that, beyond being very satisfactory as information to the House and to the country, they had a very direct bearing on the question. If the Royal Duke and his intended bride had been loss accomplished and less amiable than they were, he presumed that this demand would still have been made; and even in these degenerate days, and with all the vices that abounded, he should incline to think there was a very large number of amiable and accomplished people who would like very well to be married and have £10,000 a-year added to their incomes; and, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to provide all these persons with that amount, he would find a very heavy strain on his resources, great as they were. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had, indeed, contended that

    783
    a sort of bargain had been made, or, at least, that an understanding had been come to, at the commencement of the present Reign, to the effect that grants of the kind should be made when Members of the Royal Family attained their majority, or were about to be married. Now, if this could be clearly proved, it would at once remove many of his objections. He should still think the system objectionable; but he should not think it becoming or honourable, if such an agreement really had been come to at the commencement of the present Reign, to throw obstacles in the way, and to speak on a delicate question of that sort as he was now doing. But he asserted that there was not a particle of proof brought forward to show that there had ever been any such understanding. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) had put the matter on another ground. In the eloquent speech he had delivered upon the subject a few days ago, the right hon. Gentleman had said if they looked at the scale of expenditure which prevailed among the wealthier classes of society and at the large incomes enjoyed, not only by the members of the aristocracy, but by others who had made their way in the world by their own efforts, they would regard what was proposed in this case as a reasonable provision. He (Mr. Burt) would not say that these were considerations which should have no weight; but he thought it was placing the matter on very questionable ground. If a man had made a fortune, and he spent that fortune in show and splendour, they might consider it very foolish, but beyond a mild criticism, no one else had anything to do with the matter; but if an appeal were made to that House and to the country on the ground of that expenditure, they had a right to inquire whether it was worth while to pay the money in that way. But he would not go further in this direction. He would only say that, while it was quite true they had very wealthy people in this country, and from the cheers with which the remark of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr.
    Gladstone) had been received, he was glad to find that there were many Members of that House to whom £15,000 or £25,000 a-year seemed a very moderate sum—apart from all this, while we had undoubtedly a great deal of wealth
    784
    in the country, they should remember that in many respects the country was a very poor one; while there were many who had large incomes, there was a great number who could scarcely get a bare subsistence, and many others who were now appealing to the Boards of Guardians for relief. But those who were poor had no jealousy or envy of the rich; there was not that passion among them for social equality that was to be found in most other parts of the world; but they must not be surprised if a man who worked hard for 15 s. or £1 a-week should look at a subject of this sort from a somewhat different standpoint from that of the man who enjoyed an income of £15,000 to £25,000 a-year. He was obliged to the House for listening to him so attentively, because he could not but feel that he had uttered sentiments that were somewhat distasteful to a considerable number of Members on both sides of the House.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Plimsoll.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. EARPsaid, he desired to state the reasons which compelled him reluctantly to give his vote against the Bill. He shared the opinion of the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) that one was bound on such an occasion as the present to throw sentiment aside. He looked upon the question entirely from an economical point of view, and he should vote against the Bill because he desired to save the people of this country from every penny of unnecessary taxation. If it could be shown that the financial condition of the country was such as to warrant those minute items of expenditure, he, for one, would not hesitate to vote for the Bill. When they considered the altered state of things in this country, as compared with 10 years ago, the House would agree with him that it was their duty, as Representatives of the people, to consider carefully every item of expenditure, however small. During the Administration of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), they had an annual increase of expenditure, which rose during the latter part

    785
    of his tenure of Office to about £l, 000,000 per annum. But during that period there was almost boundless prosperty in the country; no classes were suffering, all industries were flourishing, and people were not too minute in their criticisms of expenditure. Since, however, the accession of the present Government an entirely different state of things had obtained, and the expenditure had risen, not at the rate of £1,000,000, but at the rate of £2,000,000, £3,000,000, and £4,000,000 per annum; and at the present moment it had reached the high total of £80,000,000 per year. He could understand that if the income of the people was commensurate with so large an expenditure, the House would not hesitate to vote freely the amount which was now asked for. But it was contrary to all true principles of government and finance to go on increasing expenditure at a time when the resources and the income of the people were gradually diminishing, and that they were diminishing no one would deny. Hon. Members opposite knew that the agricultural interest was suffering; that the farmers were continually appealing to them to save them from some of their burdens; that farm after farm was being placed in the hands of the landowners; and that many of the poor, overburdened farmers were unable to pay their rents. Further, no one could deny that the classes more immediately affected by trade were suffering to a great extent all through the community. For some years past it had been hoped that the number of paupers was diminishing, and that the cost of each individual pauper was also declining; but in the last two years it had become evident that the tide was turning in the contrary direction, and the country had to face a prospect of increased and increasing pauperism. The struggling middle classes were also suffering severely; and, although it might sound strange, the wealthy classes had been the poorest in the community, because they had not been able to find a means for using their money. For a long time past nothing had been so cheap as money; and, therefore, it was the duty of every Member of that House to look carefully at every item of the expenditure, with a view to putting a check upon it. It could not fee denied that if the expenditure went on at its present rate, without corre-
    786
    sponding prosperity to meet it, national bankruptcy would become inevitable. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: No, no.] The receipts obtained by the Chancellor of the Exchequer were no criterion of the real value of the income of the community at large, because the right hon. Gentleman had only to issue his mandate and the money was forthcoming; but if they dug down deep enough, an extensive substratum of poverty would be found to exist in the country. He should, therefore, feel it his bounden duty, until the wide gap between the resources and the expenditure of the country was bridged over, to oppose every item of extra expenditure that was brought before the House.
    MR. NEWDEGATEreminded hon. Members opposite that it was not likely that he, who largely shared the opinions of his old Friend, the late Colonel Sibthorpe, should be inclined to vote for anything that he deemed unduly extravagant, even in support of the Royal Family; because, at the time when the marriage of Her Majesty was contemplated, there was no Radical, no Liberal, no Minister found with the courage to express the opinion that the income intended for His late Royal Highness was too large by half. That task was performed by his late Friend, Colonel Sibthorpe, and he (Mr. Newdegate) assented to the proposal. He was far from blaming hon. Members opposite, who spoke for the working classes, for taking this opportunity to represent to Her Majesty the distress which prevailed in the country. He reminded them, however, that the State Expenditure of the American Government exceeded, in many respects, that of the United Kingdom. He had himself, for many years, represented the feelings of a large body of the working population; for, although he was a county Member, he was senior Member for Birmingham, and he had striven to represent the working classes in the House, and claimed to have some knowledge of their feelings. He believed that the working classes were too reasonable to suppose that it would be possible to graduate allowances to the Royal Family according to the commercial condition of the country. They knew it would be impossible for Her Majesty to discharge her duties if She had a fluctuating income; and the same reasoning applied to Members of the Royal Family.

    787
    While he was no exaggerated Royalist, perhaps, no man was more determined in his defence of Parliamentary and Constitutional elements of the Government of this country. He believed that the working classes made allowances for the necessity of maintaining the high position of the Royal Family. He did not think they were the least jealous of that position; but, on the contrary, that they took a pride in it. The feelings which at times had arisen against the aristocracy were not directed against the Crown, because if was fortunate that for more than 200 years the Head of the Royal Family, seated on the Throne by the choice of the people and by law, had identified himself with the people in their anxiety, labours, successes, and prosperity. Instead of being idlers, the Members of the Royal Family filled the position of Commander-in-Chief of the Army, and other positions of great responsibility; and when a connection was formed between the aristocracy and the Royal Family, it was formed with a nobleman who, at that moment, was about to resume the responsibility of the government of one of our greatest Colonies. The Duke of Connaught himself, for whose provision, on his marriage, this grant was intended, was believed to have rendered himself one of the most efficient officers in Her Majesty's Service; so much so that it was hoped that, at some future day, he might fill the position of Commander-in-Chief. He believed the working classes felt that the Royal Family worked with them—that they did not shrink from labour, but accepted every post of labour consistent with their position; and, therefore, the working classes considered them fellows in their labours, and desired, by every means, to maintain them in the position which, as being connected with the Sovereign, they deemed to be so important to the country at large.
    MR. MACDONALD, while professing loyalty to the Crown, and high respect for its Wearer, opposed this grant, because he believed Her Majesty had, in the Civil List and otherwise, a sufficient sum to maintain Her Family, without coming to Parliament time after time for grants in order to enable them to live. In his opinion, it was degrading to the Royal Family to be obliged to come there and solicit sums of money from the taxpayers of the country on
    788
    the marriage or majority of one of their number. His experience of the working classes might not be equal to that of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate); but, so far as he knew the feelings of the working classes, they were totally different from that which had been represented by the hon. Member, There was no question which was so freely and thoroughly discussed by the working classes as that of the continual demands which were made upon the country to maintain Members of the Royal Family apart from the heavy Civil List of Her Majesty. He hoped this would be the last grant of the kind, for he believed they were sapping the foundations of the Throne. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that there was a compact between the Crown and Parliament at the beginning of this Reign. He should like to know, when, where, and by whom this compact was made? They ought also to be told the value of the Crown Lands given up at the time—all the items to boot. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) said the other day that it was much better to come time after time for these grants than to have to ask for Votes to pay debts. No one in that House could have a higher respect for the right hon. Gentleman, yet it seemed to him (Mr. Macdonald) that there was not a whit of difference between coming to get money to pay debts before they were contracted and coming to get money after the debts were contracted. He ventured to say that if application were made to Parliament to pay the debts of any Member of the Royal Family, it would cause a tumult in the country which they would not cease to hear of for a long time. In a gush of Irish loyalty—coming as it did from the Home Rule Members from that country—that quite delighted him, they were told the other night by an hon. Member from Ireland that they ought to agree to the grant because the Duke of Connaught gave freely whenever he was applied to for any object. He expected next to hear a claim made on his behalf because he was a good joker, or a prince of smokers, or an enemy to the Sunday Closing Bill, or a drinker of potheen. All these arguments were frivolous—it was the principle of it that was wrong. The time for proposing this grant was inopportune in

    789
    the highest degree, as the condition of the working classes was, in many parts of the country, very bad. He ventured to say that thousands and tens of thousands were struggling to eke out a subsistence on less than 2d. a-day per head for each member of their families, and in such circumstances to ask for £10,000 a-year for a Member of the Royal Family was out of place. America had been mentioned. He knew something of America, and he did not believe that the Civil servants there were paid such high salaries as were paid in this country. It was simply nonsense to say so.
    COLONEL NORTHsaid, he had been long enough a Member of that House to have been present on every occasion when Her Majesty had been graciously pleased to ask that House to enable Her to provide for her Royal children, either when they came of age or on entering upon matrimonial life, and he recollected that on all these occasions there were some half-dozen Members who considered it their duty to oppose the Vote, and thus prevent their brother Members doing that which would have been most grateful to their feelings—namely, to return an unanimous Address to the Gracious Message of Her Majesty. On the present occasion the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) had thought it his duty not only to oppose the Vote, but to move an Amendment which, in his humble opinion, was very little short of an affront to the Queen. The object of the Amendment was simply to adjourn the consideration of the Bill sine die.
    MR. PLIMSOLLsaid, he knew of no other means to oppose the Bill than that which he had adopted, and he certainly meant no offence to the Queen.
    COLONEL NORTHsaid, that he entirely dissented from the opinions of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald). He certainly might have some acquaintance with the working classes of the country; but he (Colonel North) believed there was no class, from the highest to the lowest, from the richest to the poorest, who were not delighted to avail themselves of opportunities like the present, to evince to Her Majesty and the Royal Family the love and affection in which they were held by the whole country. He hoped this might not be made an exception to the rule; but that the House would return an
    790
    almost unanimous response to the Gracious Message in which Her Majesty had asked the House to provide for one of her sons, who was most deserving the respect and confidence of the country.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, that it could not be denied that the Queen had at the commencement of Her Reign made over to the State a much greater income than that bestowed in Parliament, including therewith the present claim. The fact of the compact made between the Sovereign and Parliament at the beginning of the Reign was clear. An Act was passed which vested all the hereditary estates of the Crown in Parliament. That Act was the 1 & 2 Vict. c. 2, and the Preamble covered the entire case, on which this application was justified. By the Act Her Majesty unreservedly placed all the Crown property in trust for the nation, in return for grants by Parliament to support the honour and dignity of the Crown, accepting only what was needful for the time. He was not in the habit of dilating upon a case which must be taken to be proved; and, therefore, he would ask hon. Members, after what he had shown them, to withdraw all opposition to this Bill.
    MR. E. JENKINSsaid, he should not have advised this opposition to the third reading if he had been consulted on the matter, and he complained that the Amendment had been brought forward in the manner in which it had been done. He wished to explain why he thought it was his duty to vote with his hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) on Thursday last. There was some misunderstanding on the subject, and he thought the motives which had been imputed to them by the hon. and gallant Member for Oxfordshire (Colonel North)—such as a desire to insult the Sovereign—were little calculated to enhance the character of Parliamentary discussions. On former occasions, Leaders on both sides notorious for their loyalty had, in the most open and candid manner, discussed these Votes. Why, then, should hostility to the Crown be imputed to those Members who did the same thing now? He heard the other day of a Tory, and a man of position, saying that all those who opposed this Vote were Republicans, and ought to be hung. When one found such notions entertained at the present

    791
    day by the Tory Party, who were straining the Prerogatives of the Crown to the utmost extreme, one almost felt that he was wearing his head at the will of the Chief Adviser of the Crown. Coming to the serious question before the House, he hoped neither it nor the Government would overlook the real significance of this debate. He did not think anything had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) to afford the Crown the least justification for a feeling of resentment. The question before them was, whether grants of public money were not being repeatedly asked without a due and clear statement of the necessity for them? The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the Royal Family had a less revenue now than in King William IV.'s Reign; but that was incorrect. There was some excitement in the country, and they could not ignore the fact, and those who knew the working classes could say that it was deeply and largely entertained. They must discuss the question as a matter of business between the Crown and the people, and the feeling abroad was this—that the amount granted for the expenditure of the Crown was not wholly expended, and that it would be quite possible for the Crown, out of the revenues that were at this moment being saved and put away, to provide sufficient for the Royal Family. He did not say this was his opinion; but he only pointed out that the manner in which these grants were asked for, without presenting the state of accounts between the Crown and the people, led to these suspicions outside. The Government maintained silence, and the Crown refused information, and so they were placed in the unfortunate position of having to oppose what, otherwise, they would cheerfully and unanimously grant. He would be glad if it were shown that the grant to the Prince of Wales, who had so much of the burdens of the State thrown upon his shoulders, ought to be enhanced to maintain the dignity of his position. He could conceive nothing more injurious or destructive of the true dignity of the Crown than the argument which had been put forward, that it was necessary that the Royal Princes should be placed in a position to hold their own alongside of wealthy Peers. In this country, we looked to the Crown to set an example of simplicity
    792
    of life, and it was not for the House of Commons to give to Royal Princes a means of maintaining an unhealthy magnificence. The hon. Member for Derby had spoken of the exercise of the Prerogative, and he said he would not be a party to any more of these Votes for the Royal Family, so long as the Prerogative was exercised as it had been lately. That statement was illogical, but a significant one, and it was not unimportant to be considered by the Government. It could not be surprising that the people should discuss these matters. The Government had found worthy occupation for Members of the Royal Family, and nothing would be more popular than the appointment lately made to the Governorship of the Dominion of Canada. If these appointments could be more frequently made, there would be less necessity for resorting to Parliament for these grants of money.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he would not detain the House for more than a few minutes. He regretted that his hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) had thought it necessary to move this Amendment, and he also regretted the way in which the hon. and gallant Member for Oxfordshire (Colonel North) had spoken of the Amendment. There could be no doubt that any hon. Gentleman who had an objection to this grant was perfectly at liberty to raise it, and past Parliamentary history showed that similar objections had often been raised by Gentlemen whose good taste and loyalty could not be questioned. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) had spoken of his knowledge of the feelings of the working classes on this subject, and the hon. Members for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) and Morpeth (Mr. Burt) had also spoken of their knowledge of those feelings. He thought it was possible to have too much of hon. Members speaking of their knowledge of the feelings of the working classes. Those classes were undoubtedly the great mass of the people; but it had always struck him— without endeavouring to cast any reflection upon any hon. Member on either side—that there could scarcely be any greater presumption than in a man getting up and saying that he spoke on behalf of the working classes. Representing, as he did, a constituency num-

    793
    bering some 20,000 or 30,000 electors, an enormous majority of whom were working men, he did not pretend for a moment to speak as the exponent of the feelings of the working classes on this question; but, as it was quite possible that this question might be raised at his next meeting with his constituents, he would not allow the subject to pass without expressing his views with regard to it, which he believed would meet with the approval of his constituents. His experience went to show that there was a strong feeling in the country among all classes—and quite as much among the working classes as any other—that, upon the whole, our ancient Monarchy was an institution which should be kept up— that there was no desire to change it for Republicanism—or for what he believed to be a far greater danger—Imperialism. With that feeling there was also another feeling which naturally belonged to a generous and sensible people—namely, that if we were to have a Monarch, that Monarch should be maintained in a position suitable to his rank. It would not be at all difficult to convince his constituents, although they might have heard something to the contrary, that the Civil List, or the allowance to the Queen and the Members of the Royal Family was small, as regarded its weight upon the people, compared with that which was allowed to the Monarchs of other great countries; that it was small as compared with that of former Kings and Queens of this country, with the exception of the particular case of William IV.; and that it was small in comparison with the wealth of, and the scale of living, in this country. The present distress that existed had been alluded to. The House was quite aware of it, and of the necessity of economy; but surely his hon. Friend could not suppose that this sum which they were voting could have the most infinitesimal effect upon the means of individual taxpayers? It would be playing with words and facts to say that the present commercial depression was a reason why the sum now asked for should not be granted, if there were other reasons for granting it. With regard to the arrangement that had been come to when Her Most Gracious Majesty came to the Throne, some 40 years ago, he was not sure whether he should give it his assent if it were now to be proposed for the first time;
    794
    for he doubted whether the best thing to do was to be constantly coming to Parliament for grants for the younger children of the Royal Family, and he was not perfectly sure whether he should agree with his right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich upon the point. At the same time, the agreement had been entered into, and in upholding it he believed that hon. Members would have the support of their constituents. Judging from the analogy of past Reigns, he thought that if it were not intended that an additional grant should be made when the members of the Royal Family married, the original grant to them should be larger. It, therefore, appeared to him, that as honest men they were bound to fulfil the contract that had been entered into with Her Majesty at the commencement of Her Reign; and, therefore, he should support the third reading of the Bill.
    MR. SERJEANT SPINKS, speaking as the Representative of a very large working-class constituency, which had as much love for economy as any constituency of the Kingdom, and would deprecate most strongly any improper or extravagant expenditure, asserted with confidence; that during the many years he had been acquainted with them he had never heard from any of the Conservative working men of Oldham a single objection to these grants being made for the support of the Royal Family. Though these might be times of some distress to many of them, he was satisfied that they would most cheerfully contribute their mite to the support of the Royal Family, for which they entertained the most loyal and affectionate feelings; and therefore he should vote for the third reading of the Bill, believing that in doing so he should be best representing their feelings and his own.
    MR. RATHBONEdesired to state why he voted most cordially for the Bill. The hon. Member for Dundee had said that he looked to the Queen and Her Family for examples of careful and frugal life, and it was because they had not looked in vain to the Queen for that example that he was quite prepared to support this grant. He thought it was mainly due to the admirable example of a correct and virtuous life and of a frugal household which the Queen and Prince Consort had set, that this country

    795
    owed its exemption from a great amount of demoralization and excess of luxury, and all those other evils that arose from an exuberant prosperity. Beyond that, the nation owed a deep debt of gratitude to the Queen for the Constitutional way in which she had carried on Her Government.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he understood that the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll), and the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt), repudiated having spoken as especially representing working men. They considered that they represented the opinions of the general community as much as other hon. Members, and this question concerned the whole community. For himself, he should have been satisfied to let the matter rest where it stood after the able speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke); but as it had seemed good to the hon. Member for Derby again to raise the question, it would be cowardly in him not to give a vote upon it, and he should, therefore, support the Motion for the rejection of the Bill. These were not pleasant subjects for the House to deal with; but public duty must be paramount, and personal feelings put aside, when questions of this kind came up. It was admitted that there were no precedents for these grants until the present Reign—therefore, the question was entirely one of expediency. Was it well for the public that these grants of public money should be made? he was surprised that the hon. and gallant Member for Oxfordshire (Colonel North) should get up and say that when a Member of that House deemed it his duty to object to a grant of public money, he was offering an affront to the Queen. Those who would vote for the Amendment were just as loyal as the hon. and gallant Member himself. Loyalty did not consist in voting large sums of money whenever the Crown asked for them. Loyalty consisted in voting money in a wise manner, and in passing legislation which would make the people happy and contented; for it was upon the contentment and happiness of the people that the real security of the Crown depended. He objected to this Vote on the very simple ground that no public money should be voted except for public services. He did not know what public services the Duke of
    796
    Connaught had yet rendered, although he might yet do many in the career that lay before him. Some seven years ago, Parliament had been called upon to vote him £15,000 per annum for his maintenance because he had been good enough to come of age; and they were now asked to vote him £10,000 a-year in addition, because he was going to be good enough to marry. It must not be supposed that those who objected to this Vote objected to the splendour of the Crown being maintained. The right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) was fighting the air when he made that enthusiastic speech just now in favour of voting £10,000 a-year for this Royal Prince. Nobody was attacking the Monarchy; all that they said was that they believed enough money had been voted to maintain the splendour of the Crown, and they believed it the more because the Government refused to give the House information about it when it was asked for by the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke). He did not wish it to be supposed that he opposed the Vote on exactly the same ground as the hon. Member for Derby. He did not believe that the working men were in a ferment on this question. They were not sufficiently good politicians to work themselves up into a ferment on this subject. In fact, he had been astonished and grieved at the manner in which they had sat quiet in the face of the mad and mischievous expenditure of the present Government, and he should be glad to see the extra turn of the screw given that would bring about a radical re-action, and cause this senseless waste of money to be put a stop to. He had no sympathy with hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who went about the country to Liberal meetings—it might be at Bradford—and talked very largely about retrenchment of the Revenue, and then came to that House and made enthusiastic speeches in favour of voting £10,000 a-year to a young man because he was going to get married. This system might extend to the children and grandchildren of the Sovereign, and their children and their children's children would have to vote enormous sums for this purpose. Why could not the opponents of the grant have one or two Tories to vote with them on this occasion? The hon. Mem-

    797
    ber for Ashton (Mr. Mellor) was, he believed, the only economical Tory in the Kingdom. There was a time when the Tories could look at this matter in a different light from that in which they now viewed it. Did the House remember how, when a Vote was proposed by a Liberal Government for the late Prince Albert, the whole Tory Party came down almost to a man and voted to cut down the sum voted to that Prince? There was nothing said then about it being an affront to the Throne. He thought that the argument of which the right hon. Member for Bradford thought so little—namely, the distressed state of trade and commerce in this country —had something to do with the question, and he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) would not be a party at such a period to voting such a grant as was now asked for.
    MR. MUNTZsaid, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give the House some precedent besides the Vote for the Duke of Edinburgh. Up to that time the rule had been only to make provision for the Heir Apparent. If the House was to make provision for, and encourage, the marriage of all the younger children of Royalty, it would be bound to provide for the children of those marriages; and that was the difficulty pointed out nearly a century ago, when the discussion took place as to the marriage of a younger son of the Monarch. If this grant were made, they would have to make another for the next son of Her Majesty, and so they would go on ad infinitum, and it was impossible to see where it would end. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give some precedent to justify this Vote.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I have been unwilling to interpose earlier in this debate, because I feel most entirely that this is a question upon which it is perfectly right and legitimate that the House should freely express its opinion; and I would go further, and say that I think it is desirable that the House should do so, and that it should not be allowed to go forth to the people that we have made a proposal of this sort, and, as it were, huddled it through without any consideration or discussion, and that we voted away the money of the people without fairly considering what the
    798
    grounds were upon which the proposal is made. Now, we had, the other day, a full discussion on the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke), and the general grounds upon which we made this proposal were then explained. Today, we have had the matter raised again, and several objections have been raised to the proposal which has been made. Objections were taken to it on grounds which were not in the mind of the hon. Member for Chelsea, and on grounds on which, I venture to think, this House would hardly be disposed to proceed. I hardly think that the House will be disposed to act on the ground which was taken by the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) when he moved the rejection of the Bill—namely, that he considered that the Prerogative of the Crown was being advanced further than formerly. I do not think the House would consider that a ground to justify opposition to such a proposal as this; and I observe that the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins), while sharing the jealousy of what he regarded as a stretch of the Prerogative of the Crown, fairly stated that that was no cogent reason for objecting to this Vote. Then the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Earp) introduced a new topic into the consideration of the question—namely, the general financial condition of the country, and the supposed extravagance of the present Government. That, of course, is a very important question, and it is one which might, at the proper time, be made the subject of discussion; but I hardly think that counts as a matter which can be relied upon as a reason for objecting to this Vote. The truth is that, in considering this subject, we ought really to look to the nature of the contract which has been made with the Crown, and to the reasonableness and suitability of this proposal in connection with that contract. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) asked— "What is this contract of which we hear, and where is the evidence? When, where, and by whom was it made, and where is it recorded?" The hon. Member's questions were answered by the hon. Member for Youghal (Sir Joseph M'Kenna), who stated that the contract was to be found in the Preamble of the Act passed at the commencement of the Reign of Her present Majesty, in which

    799
    it was recorded that Her Majesty, being entitled to certain hereditary estates and revenues, had placed them unreservedly at the disposal of the public; and that, in return for that surrender, She was granted an annual sum of £385,000, to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund, for the support of the Royal Household. But the question was, what was the nature of the bargain which was made when that sum of £385,000 per annum was allotted to Her Majesty? Was it intended that the sum should cover all future expenses with regard to the Royal Family, and that after that time no further allowance should be made for their support? In former times, the Civil List was based on a different arrangement from that which now prevails. In the early days of the Civil List there were large hereditary revenues declared to be in possession of the Crown, and Votes were made to support the Civil List, and out of that Civil List the Sovereign made certain payments. The Judges and Ambassadors were paid, and other charges met out of it, which have since been taken off the hands of the Sovereign and placed upon the Votes of Parliament. Under these circumstances, the annuities and pensions which were granted, either to the Royal Family or to other persons, fell upon the Civil List; and, from time to time, the Parliament made grants in aid of the Civil List, in order to enable the Crown to keep up those pensions and annuities. Under that system, certain grants were made which it is unnecessary for us to go into, because matters are now on a different footing, and we had much better fix our attention on what has taken place during the present Reign. It was, as we were reminded the other day, under the Reign of William IV. that the old system was revised, and the revision was complete at the beginning of the Reign of Her present Majesty. Did that exclude further applications for grants? Why, within two or three years after the settlement, the first application was made for a grant of an annuity to the Prince Consort. According to the theory of the hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke), and others, that was altogether a wrong application. ["No!"] Either the original £385,000 given to the Queen in exchange for the hereditary revenues at the beginning of the Reign was intended to support the household, dignity, and state
    800
    of Her Majesty under all the circumstances of Her Reign, or it was not. If it was a bargain, once and for all, and was never to be altered, there was no justification for an application for a grant on Her Majesty's marriage; but if it was otherwise, the circumstances changing, the grant was proposed in accordance with what was understood to be a reasonable arrangement. I think, if the hon. Baronet will look back to the circumstances under which the Queen's Civil List was settled, he will find that references being made to the fact that a lower establishment was proposed for Her Majesty lower than Her Predecessor, notice was taken that She was in a different position, because She was at that time unmarried. When the marriage took place, the proposal was made by the Government of the day to settle an annuity of £50,000 a-year on the Queen's husband. The principle was not challenged. It was admitted that there ought to be some addition, but the question arose whether the addition proposed was or was not excessive. On that there were differences of opinion, and some statesmen of great note, and amongst others Sir Robert Peel, took a leading part in recommending a smaller grant. I will merely call the attention of the House to a passage in Sir Robert Peel's speech at the time, which is as follows:—
    "He thought that £30,000 during the life of Her Majesty, by way of a privy purse, would be a just and a liberal grant. He thought, also, that £30,000 to Prince Albert, in case of his surviving Her Majesty, and there being no issue, would be a just and liberal provision. But he thought, that if Prince Albert survived Her Majesty, and that there were heirs to the Crown, the grant ought to be £50,000; but then he also said, that if Prince Albert were the father of a numerous family, and expenses thus fell upon the Prince, he for one would vote that which would be becoming to the father of the Royal family."—[3 Hansard, li. 627.]
    And, in a subsequent speech, Sir Robert Peel said—
    "I cordially supported the proposition of my hon. and gallant Friend for reducing the grant to Prince Albert from £50,000 to £30,000; not, however, from any mistrust, or a want of confidence in Prince Albert, but because, on looking at the whole of the circumstances of the case, I thought £30,000 the proper sum to be allowed. I stated, then, that £30,000 was a sufficient sum to give to Prince Albert in the event of the death of Her Majesty, an event which I, in common with all Her Majesty's subjects,

    801
    should deeply deplore—an event which I do not and will not anticipate—and I still am of the opinion that such a sum is a reasonable allowance to make in case Prince Albert should survive Her Majesty. I went, however, further than this, and I said, that, in case Prince Albert should become the father of a family, then I thought £30,000 would be an inadequate allowance, and that I had no doubt, in such a case, the House would be ready to consider the propriety of voting an addition to the £30,000."— [Ibid., 1106.]
    Nothing can be clearer from that passage, and from the general tone of the debate that then took place, than that the House, at the time it arrived at the settlement at the beginning of Her Majesty's Reign, took into consideration the whole state of the case, and that the £385,000 per annum they granted was not intended to cover the whole expenses of the Royal Family, and that it thought that it was reasonable that additional grants, rendered necessary by the changes in that Family, should be made from time to time. If that is once admitted, it cannot be said that the grant now asked for is of an extravagant or of an unreasonable character. The present case is one precisely similar to that of the grant to the Duke of Edinburgh, and the reasons which prevailed then apply equally now. It is unnecessary to argue over and over again these points. I simply wish to point out that the arrangement made in the beginning of the Reign was one much in favour of the public, because the sum granted to Her Majesty was a fixed sum, and the revenues which she surrendered were increasing revenues. The Crown Lands now alone produce more than £385,000, and other branches of the hereditary revenue would have also increased considerably if they had not in some cases, for the advantage of the public, been surrendered and done away with. In these circumstances, I think we are asking what is fair and reasonable; and it is, I am sure, inconsistent with and contrary to the feelings of the large majority of the country that it should be objected to. I quite admit to the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt) that to persons who live on a very small income any of these sums appear to be large; but when you take into consideration the circumstances of those for whom they are granted—the society in which they live, the position they are expected to maintain, and the duties they are expected to perform—I do not
    802
    think the sums asked for are unreasonable. I must take exception to the very extraordinary doctrine which has been laid down by the hon. Member (Mr. Macdonald), that there is no difference between asking for money for debts which have been contracted, and asking for money in order to make reasonable allowances which will render it unnecessary for these persons to contract debts. There is all the difference in the world; and if no better reason than that could be offered, there would be no difficulty in disposing of the matter. I trust that the House will consent to read the Bill a third time.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he should not have taken part in the debate had it not been for the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman had given no direct answer to the question put by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins), who had asked him, with reference to a statement made by him the other day, that the provision made for the Queen was less than that made for the late Sovereign William IV., the grounds upon which he had made that statement? The Chancellor of the Exchequer had, however, alluded to the matter in passing, and had said that the provision was less. Now, Mr. Goulburn, who had been Chancellor of the Exchequer, had, in the debate with regard to the Prince Consort's grant, compared the two Civil Lists, and he pointed out that from the Civil List of William IV. there must be deducted pensions amounting to £75,000, and £10,000 secret service money. If to the present Civil List of £385,000 were added the £50,000 then proposed, it would increase the Queen's Civil List £10,000 beyond that of the late King and Queen. But Mr. Goulburn further said there was another £10,000 which the Queen gained by a diminution of charges on the Civil List, and that made the Queen's Civil List £20,000 in excess, which was exactly the amount by which it was proposed to reduce the grant asked for for Princ6 Albert. There were revenues in the present Reign which did not exist in the late Reign, in addition to the Crown Lands. The Duchy of Lancaster, which was hardly worth anything at the commencement of Her Majesty's Reign, had reached the annual value of £73,000 two years ago.

    803
    That one fact alone disposed of all the arguments which had been founded by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) upon the doctrine that the present Civil List was less than that of the late Reign. It was impossible to go into the matter of savings in the Civil List without being misunderstood; and he should, therefore, only say that Lord Brougham called attention to the matter in 1850, in the House of Lords, and he would recommend hon. Members to read the protest which that noble Lord then placed upon record. Every request for information with regard to those savings had been refused; and, whatever might be the proper interpretation of the Civil List Act, as to those savings going to the public or to the Crown, it seemed to be provided by that Act that they should not go to the Crown without the knowledge of Parliament. What he asked was, that not only should the House have placed before it an account of the increase of the Duchy of Lancaster revenues, but that it should have Returns, year by year, of the savings by which the privy purse was increased. Not only had the Crown thus largely increased income, hut, by Acts passed in the present Reign, it was empowered to invest its savings in landed property; and here again secrecy had been maintained, and Parliament was not enabled to obtain any account of the amount of these estates. There was an absolute refusal of any information on these subjects. A few years ago these applications for grants always rested upon the question of precedents. The application in the case of the Duke of Edinburgh was based mainly upon the ground of precedent; but in the present instance the right hon. Member for Greenwich had thrown over that ground, and he now relied upon the precedent that he had himself created upon that occasion. It, therefore, became necessary to discuss this grant as a matter of expediency or necessity, and not of pure precedent; and thus it was more than ever important that the House should have laid before it the present position of the relations of the Crown and the public the state of the Civil List, and Returns showing what the expenditure was. The contract which it was said was made at the beginning of the present Reign was not worth very much; for the words
    804
    used in the Civil List Act, as to the surrender of the Crown Lands, had been constantly used from the time of Queen Anne downwards. Everyone knew that the Crown Lands were State Lands. They had been confiscated over and over again; and if the Crown resumed possession of them to-morrow, it could not deal with them as it could with its private estates at Osborne or Balmoral. They were practically Parliamentary and national estates. If the Civil List Act were looked upon as a contract, it would seem to exclude these applications for grants; but he thought it was fair to assume that in the minds of those who made the arrangement there was the intention of coming to Parliament at a future time for further grants. But there was no intention of coming for such a grant as this, because, there being no precedent for it, if such an intention had existed, it would have been stated; and upon that ground he felt bound to oppose this grant. There was certain to be opposition to any future grant which might be proposed; because the House had been, over and over again, refused, and was still denied, the information which was absolutely necessary in order to enable it to form its opinion upon the character of the grant.
    MAJOR O'BEIRNEsaid, the gifts made for educational and charitable purposes in Ireland by the Duke of Connaught contrasted most favourably with those of the absentee proprietors, amounting, in some cases, to five times as much.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 151; Noes 13: Majority 138.—(Div. List, No. 248.)
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

    CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) BILL— [Lords]— [BILL 204.]
    (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
    COMMITTEE. [Progress 30 th July.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)

    SCHEDULE 3.—PLEURO-PNEUMONIA.
    MR. SYNANsaid, that the Government had declared that they would transfer to another part of the Bill, with

    805
    which it was more properly consistent, the Proviso giving power to the Privy Council to prohibit the holding of fairs and markets. He should like the Secretary to the Treasury to explain to the Committee the manner in which he proposed to set the matter right. It was right that the Privy Council should have the power to prohibit the holding of fairs and markets in any particular area. The Privy Council would be much better able to decide on the circumstances of each particular case than the House could do by any general rules. In some cases it would be advisable to stop fairs and markets, and in others not. Under these circumstances, he begged to withdraw the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONwished to say a few words to the Committee with regard to these Schedules. The intention was to give the Privy Council power to declare an area, which was the word used, instead of a district, and had taken the place of a district in the Bill— the Privy Council was to have power to determine whether fairs and markets in an area should be closed by reason of the amount of disease existing therein. It was quite possible that the Privy Council might deem it necessary to prohibit the holding of fairs and markets in an area, although the disease might not be so prevalent in the larger district as it was in some smaller district contained in it. Although he believed the Bill was perfectly explicit, yet it was possible that the local authorities and magistrates might find some conflict between the words of the Schedule and the governing words of Clause 18. He was instructed, by those who had prepared the Bill, that it would be better to amend Clause 18, and the other clauses dealing with foot - and - mouth disease, which was to be brought up on Report, so that it might be distinctly shown on the face of the clauses that when an area was described as infected the Privy Council had power to close fairs and markets therein and prevent an exhibition of animals in that district. What he proposed to do was to omit both Schedules 3 and 4, and that part of the 5th Schedule dealing with fairs and markets, and to insert the provisions in Clauses 18 and 22 when brought up on Report. The words would run to this effect—
    806
    "The Privy Council, on making any Order declaring any area affected with pleuro-pneumonia or extending the limits thereof, shall consider whether it is necessary or expedient to prohibit the holding in that area of any fairs or markets for the sale of any animal, and shall either prohibit the holding of such fairs and markets or permit them to be held on any condition it may think fit."
    That clause would make it clear that the prohibition rested with the Privy Council, and would do away with any uncertainty, from the conflict of words in the 18th clause and the Schedule, whether the prohibition rested with the Privy Council or the local authority. At the same time, it would have the effect of causing an area in which fairs and markets had been stopped to be published. The Committee would, therefore, see that the clause would effect the objects in view, and give the Privy Council power to deal with the markets and fairs in an area as necessity might arise.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERwould suggest that the Schedule should not be struck out until the new clause was inserted in the Bill. If the alteration were made, then the Bill would be left without any regulations at all as to fairs and markets, and so it would remain unless the addition to the 18th clause were made. There could be no objection to leaving the Schedule as it stood, to be struck out, if necessary, on Report.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he proposed to strike out Schedules 3 and 4, and to move the insertion of a new Schedule, embodying the Amendments he had mentioned at the end.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERinquired whether he rightly understood the hon. Gentleman to mean that he intended to strike out Schedule 4, and to bring up a new Schedule?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: Yes.
    Schedules 3 and 4 struck out.

    SCHEDULE 5.—FOREIGN ANIMALS.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he proposed to carry out the alteration he had promised the Committee with regard to quarantine. He moved the following Amendments to the Schedule:—
    Page 44, line 24, leave out " for dairy or breeding purposes or;" page 44, line 25, after

    807
    "exhibition," insert "or for other exceptional purposes;" page 45, line 1, leave out from "station " to " thereon," in line 20, and insert "except on conditions prescribed by general or special Order of Council."
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYobserved that, as he understood the alterations, they would practically have the effect of preventing store cattle from being brought into the country.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that the Amendments would not prevent animals intended for exhibition or for scientific purposes coming in; but all other store animals were prohibited from coming in except after quarantine inspection and supervision.
    MR. CLARE READquite understood how store cattle would be affected by the Bill. They could be imported from America and other places from which the Privy Council permitted fat cattle to be landed without slaughter, without other restrictions than the usual 12 hours' quarantine and inspection on landing. But store cattle coming from infected countries would be prohibited entering the country alive, except under the conditions laid down.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that when the Bill was before the Committee on a former occasion objection was taken on the ground that store animals, which were the most likely to introduce disease, were not efficiently excluded. He gathered that it was the almost unanimous opinion of the Committee that the regulations for the admission of store animals after a quarantine of 56 days would prove so restrictive as to be practically useless. Therefore, he had thought it better to limit the power of introduction of store animals and confine it to those intended for exceptional or scientific purposes, leaving a discretion in the Privy Council to decide the application of any person who might de-sire to import store animals, and to impose such conditions as it thought fit. He believed that the provisions as they now stood would not exclude animals brought over for exhibition or scientific purposes; but would, by their restrictive action, prevent the introduction of animals brought over for dairy and store purposes, which were understood to be the most liable to bring over disease.
    MR. CLARE READsaid, that as the Bill was originally drawn there was a long quarantine imposed on all store
    808
    animals. But there was nothing now in it to prevent a grazier going to Liverpool and buying 20 half-fat animals from America and placing them on his farm.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYobserved, that it was easy enough to legislate with regard to store cattle; but it was often utterly impossible to distinguish between fat and store cattle. He did not see why, if fat cattle from foreign countries could be bought and taken inland, store cattle also should not be treated in the same way.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONremarked, that the clause restricting the importation of store beasts would not apply except in the case of the scheduled countries.
    MR. SYNANsaid, that all countries had now been placed on a level, and power given to the Privy Council to admit both store and fat cattle from any particular foreign country. In his opinion, the Amendments under consideration were a necessary part of the abolition of quarantine.
    Amendments agreed to.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONmoved, in page 45, to leave out after line 30, to end of Schedule, and insert as new paragraph—
    IV.—Other Foreign Countries.
    "In relation to foreign animals, other than those brought from the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, if, and as long as, from time to time, the Privy Council are satisfied, with respect to any foreign country, that the laws thereof relating to the importation and exportation of animals, and to the prevention of the introduction or spreading of disease, and the general sanitary condition of animals therein are such as to afford reasonable security against the importation therefrom of diseased animals, then, from time to time, the Privy Council by general or special Order, may allow animals, or any specified kind of animals, brought from that country, to be landed, without being subject, under the provisions of this Schedule to slaughter or to quarantine, and may for that purpose alter or add to those provisions, as the case may require; but every such Order shall forthwith, after the making thereof, if Parliament is then sitting, and, if not, then forthwith after the next meeting of Parliament, be laid before both Houses of Parliament."
    He said, that he need not detain the Committee, after the long discussions that had taken place, by going at length into this clause. The Amendment was proposed by the Government in order to

    809
    carry out the changes which they had consented to make in the Bill. He now asked the Committee to adopt the paragraph in the Schedule, as one which would give the Privy Council power to decide whether foreign countries were in such a condition as to permit the introduction of animals from them into this country. In the belief that the paragraph would carry out the views of the Committee as expressed on former occasions, he asked that it might be adopted.
    MR. CHARLEYinquired why America was deprived of the privilege of free importation permitted her under the Bill as amended in the House of Lords?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that it was after considerable discussion that the Government was convinced that it would be most satisfactory to prevent the least possibility of doubt with regard to the Most Favoured Nation Clause. Although the Government was quite satisfied that its proposals raised no question as to the infraction of that clause, yet it was quite prepared to meet the views of others, and place the matter beyond question. He would point out to his hon. and learned Friend that it was impossible to deal broadly with the exception taken as to the Most Favoured Nation Clause, and yet to put America in an exceptional position. So long as the Government considered that the Most Favoured Nation Clause was not interfered with, there was some reason for allowing the freedom granted to America; but when a change was made, and all possibility of doubt removed as to that clause, it was obviously impossible to exclude America from the operation of the Bill. Perhaps he might also point out that the very condition that led the Government to omit America from the Bill would influence the Privy Council in acting in the direction desired by the hon. and learned Member. It was quite impossible to make an exception in the case of America if they wished to maintain this clause.
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, it would be impossible, after the discussion on the Most Favoured Nation Clause, to make America an exception to the rule. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Charley) himself spoke in favour of the Re-solution which he (Mr. Mundella) moved on the subject, and yet he now wanted to make America and Canada exceptions
    810
    to the general rule. He thought all had been done in reference to the Bill which ought to be done. All the substantial points which the Opposition contended for had been attained; and he believed very serious results would follow if any distinction were made between America and other places. After all, America was the most Protectionist country England had to do with. We had Favoured Nation Treaties with most Continental nations; and yet America, above all others, was the most exclusive against the admission of our manufactures. The hon. and learned Member for Salford said that, with respect to its produce, we should give America an exceptional advantage over all nations; but he (Mr. Mundella) said it could not be done. He should be glad to see all cattle coming in free — he should like, if possible, that some should have an advantage over others; but he could not support the doctrine of the hon. and learned Member.
    MR. CHAMBERLAIN, as one who had been described as an active opponent of the Bill, was bound to say, with the introduction of this amended clause by the Secretary to the Treasury, he thought the ground for any further opposition had been cut away. For his part, and on the part of those whom he represented, he accepted the concession as a very liberal one on the part of the Government; and believing it would satisfy all reasonable demands—as that was probably the last opportunity he should have of speaking on the Bill—he ventured to say the opposition to it, such as it had been, was fully justified by results. There was no doubt the discussion which had been initiated on that side of the House—and which he, to a certain extent, had endeavoured to carry on—had had the effect of materially changing the character of the Bill. The House would remember that, when first brought forward, the Bill contained clauses by which all foreign fat cattle would have been slaughtered. By the first amended clause numerous exceptions were made, and now all countries were admitted in the same position. It was true there would be a kind of protection against disease under which it would be required to be shown that reasonable precautions had been taken against disease, and under which, at the same time, the discretion allowed to the

    811
    Privy Council was so wide, and the direction of that discretion so clearly defined, that he did not think it would be possible for any Privy Council, without pressing the law in a most unfair and improper way, to exclude any country in which the conditions were such as justified the exportation of cattle. Under these circumstances, it appeared to him that if there was to be any change whatever in the law affecting foreign cattle, it could not have been a change less likely to be injurious than that which would ultimately find its place under that Bill. With regard to the regulations of the home trade, he thought it would be admitted, by hon. Gentlemen opposite, that the Bill had been very materially improved in Committee, and much larger powers given to the Privy Council, in order to prevent disease in the home trade. Under these circumstances, he must say, although he regretted on many occasions having had to address the House during the progress of the Bill, he did not think the opposition had been altogether unnecessary.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYdesired to raise his protest against the surrender by the Government of nearly everything he considered valuable in the Bill as introduced. Under the Bill as first drawn, in order to prevent disease at home foreign cattle from European countries were to be slaughtered at the port of debarkation. Farmers undertook, or they were understood to be prepared, to submit to very considerable restrictions at home for the purpose of dealing with disease, provided that they had security against the continued importation of disease from abroad. But it seemed to him that the clause now about to be introduced would do away with nearly the whole of this security; because they had it upon the best authority they could have in that House—that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster)—that the new system, in its practical results, would be very little different from the old. He (Mr. J. W. Barclay) asked, whether it was fair, or to be expected, that farmers would submit to increased restrictions and regulations at home without having additional security against the importation of disease from abroad, as they were led to expect under the Bill? He admitted that he did not think the restric-
    812
    tions with regard to home traffic were sufficient, and he tried to make them so. But although they were not sufficient to prevent disease, they would cause farmers a considerable amount of annoyance and trouble. Instead of the measure being an improvement over the existing system of legislation, so far as farmers were concerned, he thought they were placed at a disadvantage. As to the restrictions necessary to cope with home disease, great powers were given to the Privy Council. The House had not had the courage to decree imperative restrictions under the Bill; and he did not see how they could expect the Privy Council to have the courage which the House had not got. For these reasons, he thought the Bill fell very short of the expectations formed of it when introduced into the House; and, so far as he might be a judge, it was no material improvement on the existing system.
    MR. RYLANDSdid not rise to defend the Bill from the criticisms of his hon. Friend who had just sat down, nor did he say it was as good a measure as he could have wished to see passed by the House. But he must say he thought the Bill had been very much improved during its passage through Committee. Hon. Gentlemen on the Conservative Benches took this view—believing that there should be every possible restriction on the importation of foreign animals, in order to avoid any risk whatever of spreading disease, they were of opinion that great impediments must be placed in the way of importing food from other countries. On the other side of the question he, and those who acted with him, considered that every possible facility should be given to the importation into this country of foreign food; and they contended that England could afford to run a little risk, with the view of securing a large supply of foreign meat. He was disposed to believe that, with regard to foot-and-mouth disease, there were no such circumstances attending its spread in England as would at all justify the very extreme measures which had been taken under the existing Act by the Privy Council, and which might be taken under the paragraph they were now considering. At present, the regulations under which animals were imported from abroad were these. If any one beast was found to be infected with foot-and-mouth disease, then the whole

    813
    of those which came in the vessel with the one had to be slaughtered. It was shown, in evidence before the House of Lords Committee, that the effect of that regulation of the Privy Council was to impose very heavy losses upon the importers of foreign animals, and, as he thought, entirely without sufficient justification. He would take but two cases from the Returns which had been made by the Privy Council. It appeared that, in 1877, we imported from Denmark 1,680 animals, and but 11 were found to be diseased. And yet, because these 11 were infected, the whole of the others—healthy beasts—had been slaughtered. Take the case of the Netherlands, as the second instance he would give. In the same year 1,458 diseased animals came from that country, and, in consequence, 133,723 were slaughtered. It appeared to him that what was wanted to be impressed upon the Privy Council was this—that the object of the Bill was not to interfere with the importation of food, but that the arrangements as to foreign imports should be such as to secure reasonable and fair protection to importers as well as to others; but certainly not, on account of a few cases of foot-and-mouth disease, to slaughter all the animals which were healthy, simply because they came in the same ship with the infected ones.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, as he took part in the debate which took place on the subject on a previous occasion, he did not think he need now say more than one or two sentences. The clause proposed by the Secretary to the Treasury contained instructions to the Privy Council as to how they were to use their discretion. He considered the clause would be a great improvement to the Bill. There was great objection, properly raised, to the words which stood in the Bill previously; but those now substituted for them were much more reasonable, and made a considerable difference. All that was wanted was security against the importation of diseased animals. No one wanted anything but that. We did not care whether other countries got disease or not, comparatively, if we did not get that disease into England. He could not say he really thought we had much ground to object to the new clause as it stood. He thought his hon. Friend the
    814
    Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read), and those Gentlemen who were acting with him, had no reason to object to it; because if they got reasonable security against the importation of disease, he was sure they did not want more. Therefore, he could not help feeling that, after a good deal of talk, they had arrived at a very fair arrangement in the matter. There was only one proposal that he had to make, and that was in line 8, where it said "the Privy Council, by general or special Order, may." He would move to strike out the word "may," and substitute "shall." He could not imagine that there could be any objection to that Amendment. While the Act would instruct the Privy Council that they were to keep animals out of the country unless there was reasonable security against the importation of disease, there was no one but what would be so much in favour, not merely of free trade, but of trade generally, as to admit that if reasonable security was provided then there ought to be no discretion, but a necessity, to admit animals. He, therefore, moved that the word "may" should be struck out and the word "shall" substituted.
    COLONEL MUREagreed with the observations and proposal of his right hon. Friend below him (Mr. W. E. Forster). But he desired to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, what was the object of introducing, in line 8, the words "or any specified kind of animals?" because, if the country was free from disease, all kinds of cattle would be admitted.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the reason for the words was a good one. There might be a reason for admitting cattle, which would not apply to sheep.
    MR. GREGORYthought the word "may" had better remain in the clause. If" shall" was inserted, there might be a difficulty in putting a construction on the words " or any specified kind of animals."
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the principle of the Bill was that all cattle being imported should be slaughtered, save those coming from a country which was free from disease. Therefore, he thought the word "shall," slight as the change might appear, would be inconsistent with the principle of the Bill, and inconsistent with the discretion which it was intended to give to

    815
    the Privy Council. Therefore, he thought the Secretary to the Treasury would do far better to adhere to the words of the clause as he presented it.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONconfessed he did not see the alarm which some hon. Gentlemen fancied they observed in this word. He said that for this reason. In his clause discretion was absolutely reserved to the Privy Council. Well, all the alteration which the word suggested by the right hon. Gentleman would do was to see when that discretion had been exercised; and the Privy Council were satisfied that all the protection required by that clause was secured, then they should admit the animals. By allowing the word "may" to remain, he admitted that the Privy Council might be absolutely satisfied as to every security from disease; and yet, from mere capriciousness, they might exercise that further discretion which the word would give them, and not admit animals as the House wished. He, of course, must say that he did not believe the Privy Council would so act; he believed they would absolutely construe the word "may" to mean that they should admit cattle if they were satisfied. Therefore, he did not attach the same importance to the alteration as some hon. Gentlemen who had spoken. He believed it was said by some lawyers that if the word "shall" was introduced, the Privy Council would be obliged to admit animals. But he would point out to the Committee that the Privy Council must be satisfied as to security from disease before they admitted animals, so that such an argument would not apply. He did not for a moment attach any importance to this alteration. In the first place, he believed the word "may" would necessarily be interpreted as meaning "must" under the clause; and, therefore, to change it into "shall," would only have the advantage of getting rid of what he believed was a possibility of the Privy Council acting against their own conviction.
    Amendment (Mr. W. E. Forster) agreed to.
    Now Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    MR. PELLmoved, in page 45, at end of Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson's new paragraph, to add, "together with a
    816
    statement of the reasons of the Privy Council for making the Order." The hon. Gentleman said, his Amendment was one to which he attached considerable importance, and he hoped the Committee would assent to it. While the Privy Council were laying their Orders before Parliament, they might easily give their reasons for making them. And there was a precedent for what he proposed. Two years ago he succeeded, in Committee on the Education Act (1870) Amendment Bill, in obtaining the insertion of a clause for the dissolution of school boards. But the House also provided that, in cases where such dissolution took place, the Privy Council should report to Parliament the reasons for their assenting to such a course being pursued. Having so good a precedent for his present Amendment, he did not think he was proposing too much when he brought it forward. He was sure his proposal would satisfy the country generally, and that it would make the working of the Act easier and more acceptable to the people.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERhoped the hon. Member would not persist with his Amendment. The hon. Member had quoted, as a precedent for the course which he asked the Committee to adopt, the famous debate of some two years ago with reference to the dissolution of school boards. That proposal was made when the House was much farther from completing the Bill than was the case on the present occasion; and he hoped that at this period of the Session a similar debate would not be raised. If it was, the Committee might rely upon it that very great delay would arise in the passing of the Bill. He thought the object of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire would be gained by the instructions given to the Privy Council, who would have to be satisfied that the laws of foreign countries, and the sanitary condition of their cattle, were such as to justify them in relaxing the restrictions. The Privy Council could only come to decisions on evidence laid before them; and he thought the House should have faith in their judgment, and be content with a Report of the decisions at which they had arrived.
    MR. MUNDELLAhoped the Committee was not to be called upon to enter on a discussion similar to that which

    817
    arose on the school board regulations, which had been referred to. He could not see that anything could reasonably be required beyond a Report from the Privy Council that they were satisfied, after inquiring into all the circumstances, as to the efficiency of the laws and the sanitary condition of the cattle, and, therefore, recommended a relaxation of the restrictions which had existed in reference to the exportation of cattle from those countries. The hon. Member could not surely wish to raise a debate in both Houses of Parliament on each and every occasion when the Privy Council, in the exercise of the discretion vested in them, determined that the restrictions imposed upon particular countries might be relaxed.
    MR. GREGORYcould scarcely think that the hon. Member for South Leicestershire wished to have laid on the Table in every case not only the Report of the Privy Council, but the whole of the evidence on which such Report was based. In many cases the evidence would be very voluminous, and the cost of its production great. The Privy Council would be compelled, by their instructions, not to make any Orders until they had carefully examined all the evidence brought before them; and he thought their discretion to make proper and sufficient Orders might be relied upon.
    MR. EVANShoped that, as the Committee were now rapidly approaching the end of the Bill, his hon. Friend would not persist with his Amendment.
    MR. PELLsaid, he did not think the reasons which had been urged against his Amendment were sufficiently strong to induce, or to justify, him in giving way. He laid great stress upon the Privy Council having to regard the laws regulating the exportation of cattle from foreign countries, and also the general sanitary condition of the cattle in those countries; but, surely, it would be better for this country to know whenever there was any change in the laws of any foreign country with respect to the exportation of cattle which would give us at home greater security against the importation of disease. This was almost the only point in the Bill upon which he had received numerous letters from breeders in this country, who were interested in the extremely valuable high - bred stock which was to be found in the English
    818
    counties; and they all agreed with him in thinking that the proposal he had put upon the Paper was an extremely modest and moderate one. He must admit that he had not received much support at present in the Committee, and he did not know whether that ought to influence him to change his views. He hoped some Member of the Committee would be able to give better reasons against his proposals than he had yet heard.
    MR. SYNANsaid, that while he approved the proposal of the hon. Member, and should vote for it if it was pressed to a division, he thought it would be unwise to provoke a long discussion on the point; and suggested, for the sake of the Bill as a whole, the withdrawal of the Amendment, which would evidently not receive the support of the Committee.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, the object of the clause as it stood, and of the notice to be given to Parliament, was, that in every instance where a change was made notice should be given to Parliament of the fact, in order that Parliament might, in its discretion, take notice of the change proposed. A case might arise in which an hon. Member might have private information as to the laws or sanitary condition of a country which induced him to disagree with the decision of the Privy Council; and in any such case it would be competent for such Member to call the attention of Parliament to the subject, and to insist upon the production of the evidence on which the decision of the Privy Council was based. He thought his hon. Friend would see that by this means he could attain the object at which his Amendment was aimed.
    COLONEL KINGSCOTEthought the hon. Baronet had adduced a strong argument in favour of the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire. He thought much time and trouble would be saved if the evidence was laid on the Table in the first instance in each case, instead of compelling hon. Members to take the trouble of moving for it.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that on a previous occasion when this proposal was made he urged that it would be useless to lay these Orders on the Table of the House, because of the difficulty that private Members of the House

    819
    always found in obtaining opportunities of calling attention to matters of the kind. All that was asked on the present occasion was, that that which was usually given in the Reports of the Veterinary Department should be set forth in the Order which was laid on the Table of the House. The Committee had determined to trust, in a certain degree, to the discretion of the Privy Council; but by requiring the Orders to be laid on the Table, it was clearly meant that the House should consider them. He thought the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire was a perfectly reasonable one; inasmuch as he thought the Reports of the Veterinary Department would be more advantageously laid on the Table of the House while Parliament was sitting and could take cognizance of them, than that their publication should be delayed until the end of the year, when Parliament was not sitting.
    MR. CLARE READthought it unlikely that any foreign country would protest against being allowed to export their cattle to England. It seemed, however, to be the will of the Privy Council, and of a majority in the Committee, that only the decisions, and not the reasons, should be reported to the House; and, therefore, although he agreed as to the wisdom of his hon. Friend's proposal, he should advise its withdrawal.
    MR. PELLsaid that, under the circumstances, he should ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. CLARE READ, who had the following Amendment on the Paper:— In page 45, at end of Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson's new paragraph, add—
    "Provided always, That the Privy Council shall by Order provide that vessels used or employed for the importation of foreign animals from the countries exempted for the time being from the provisions of this Schedule as to slaughter and quarantine, shall not during the three months immediately preceding such use or employment, be used or employed for the importation of animals from any other foreign countries not so exempted; and shall prescribe the ports or parts of ports, not being ports or parts of ports at which animals from other foreign countries are landed, whereat animals from countries so exempted may be landed.
    "The Privy Council shall also, from time to time by Order, designate the particular markets to which alone cattle from countries so exempted
    820
    may he sent, and shall make provision for marking such cattle, and all other cattle exhibited in the same market, by clipping the hair from the end of the tail, and any person exhibiting cattle so marked in any other market, fair, exhibition, or sale, shall be guilty of an offence against this Act,"
    said, he would not move the first portion of his Amendment, as he was assured the Privy Council would issue some such regulations as he proposed; but he would move that which related to slaughter-markets. His contention was that all foreign cattle coming from the most healthy countries, after undergoing the miseries and privations of a long sea voyage and railway journey, and falling into the lines of great cattle traffic, were liable to contract disease, and should be always regarded with a certain amount of suspicion. He, therefore, contended that if admitted inland these foreign cattle should only go to specified markets, and that they and all the other cattle exhibited in such markets should be marked distinctly, and should not be allowed to be shown in any other market or fair. These cattle should be taken direct to the slaughter-house of the buyer, or if not sold kept in the lairs of the market until the next market day. He knew that this would place a restriction on the movement of more home than foreign cattle; but he did not believe any great harm would result to the owners from such a restriction. Before the Committee of last year he had recommended such a plan for the Metropolitan Market; and Mr. Caird also supported this idea of slaughter-markets. The Committee had recommended that the stock shown in the Islington Market should be killed within the confines of the Metropolis; but the Government had not introduced that recommendation into their Bill. More danger resulted in driving fat cattle from market to market than with so treating store stock. Exertions and privations that would be nothing to a slim, active, young fellow, would be irksome and dangerous to a corpulent old gentleman; so store stock could stand the fatigue of travelling and the exposure in markets better than fat cattle which had been pampered and sheltered from the weather. Moreover, as these foreign cattle came for slaughter, the sooner they were killed the better, and the animals saved the misery, and the community the loss of meat, which resulted from hawking them

    821
    about from one market to another. There was also this additional danger in allowing fat stock from such great centres as London to be re-marketed. If there was an ill-doing or diseased cow in the Metropolitan or suburban dairies she was sure to be sent to Islington, where the most wretched animal was sure to find a ready buyer. Under his suggestion the Brighton butcher could come to London and buy any cattle he required, and take them to his own slaughter-house; and, although hon. Members laughed at the method of marking which he proposed, he could say the words were taken from an Order in Council, and it was the common practice in the London market. As every market in future would be inspected, he saw no difficulty in carrying out his proposal; but if the Privy Council would intimate their intention to in any way carry out the suggestion, he would willingly withdraw his Resolution in favour of any words which the Secretary to the Treasury, either now or when the Bill was reported, might propose.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that before his hon. Friend put his proposal on the Paper he had himself considered the point very carefully—in fact, when the Bill was being prepared he endeavoured to draw clauses which would have dealt with what he might call this bonding warehouse system with regard to foreign cattle. At first sight there was a great deal to fascinate him in the idea of giving to the Privy Council power to select certain markets throughout the country to which great freedom might be given in reference to the importation of foreign cattle; but there were a great many things that hinged upon the question. If a market in the heart of the country was selected, they must get over the difficulty of conveying the cattle thither in special trucks; and there were so many other difficulties of detail which presented themselves, that very early in the attempt he had to abandon the undertaking. He could not, therefore, think it possible, at any rate at present, to carry out the suggestion of his hon. Friend.
    MR. PELLsaid, he could not see the difficulties which had presented themselves to the mind of the Secretary to the Treasury; but, on the whole, he thought it would be as well not to press the Amendment. At the same time, if
    822
    it had been adopted, he should have thought a better mode of marking beasts could have been adopted than that of depriving them of their whisks.
    MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reference to the speech of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read), reminded the Committee that Mr. Caird's suggestion was made when the proposal in the Bill was for compulsory slaughter at the port of debarkation. He admitted that to fix particular markets for the sale of imported cattle would be to benefit those markets; but he thought it would not be to the advantage of trade generally, in that it would be an unreasonable interference with the freedom of trade. He thought it would be admitted that American and Spanish cattle were probably more healthy than our own; and why on earth should the owners of such animals be compelled to send them to particular markets? He concurred with what had been said by the Secretary to the Treasury, as to the almost insuperable difficulties that would present themselves in the event of an attempt being made to carry out the suggestion of the hon. Member for South Norfolk.
    Amendment negatived.
    Schedule, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Schedules 6 and 7 agreed to.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONmoved the following new Third Schedule:—
    Pleuro-pneumonia.
    "1. Cattle are not to be moved into or out of a place infected with pleuro-pneumonia, except where, as regards movement into such a place, the cattle are affected with pleuro-pneumonia, and except in such other cases as the Privy Council think fit from time to time by general Order to except.
    "2. In the cases so excepted by Order, cattle may be moved into or out of an infected place, on conditions prescribed by general or special Order of Council, and not otherwise.
    "3. Cattle may be moved into, in or out of such parts of an area infected with pleuro-pneumonia as are not comprised in a place infected "with pleuro-pneumonia, by licence of the local authority, granted on conditions prescribed by general Order of Council, and not otherwise.
    "4. Nothing in this Schedule restricts movement of cattle in a place infected with pleuro-pneumonia.
    "5. No market, fair, exhibition, or sale of cattle is to be held in an area infected with

    823
    pleuro-pneumonia, except by licence of the Privy Council, granted for the particular market, fair, exhibition, or sale."
    In moving the Schedule he would only remark that, in accordance with what he had previously stated to the Committee, he reserved to himself the power on the Report to eliminate from it sub-section 5, in order to bring it into the form which he then described.
    Schedule read a second time, and added to the Bill.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that what he had just stated in reference to the last Schedule would apply equally to the new Schedule, which he now begged to move—
    Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
    "1. Animals are not to he moved into or out of a place infected with foot-and-mouth disease, except where, as regards movement into such a place, the animals are affected with foot-and-mouth disease, and except in such other cases as the Privy Council think fit from time to time by general Order to accept.
    "2. In the cases so excepted by Order, animals may be moved into or out of an infected place, on conditions prescribed by general or special Order of Council, and not otherwise.
    "3. Animals may be moved into, in or out of such parts of an area infected with foot-and-mouth disease, as are not comprised in a place infected with foot-and-mouth disease, by licence of the local authority, granted on conditions prescribed by Order of Council, and not otherwise.
    "4. Nothing in this Schedule restricts movement of animals in a place infected with foot-and-mouth disease.
    "5. No market, fair, exhibition, or sale of animals is to be held in an area infected with foot-and-mouth disease, except by licence of the Privy Council granted for the particular market, fair, exhibition, or sale."
    Schedule read a second time, and added to the Bill.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEremarked, that they had now reached, he was happy to say, the last Amendment to the Bill in Committee, and in moving that Amendment he would only make this general observation—that although many hon. Members might still be opposed to the measure, yet their special objections to it had been met by the Amendments which had been made in it. The Amendment he had to move was the introduction of a new Schedule with regard to the tolls levied at the foreign cattle market at
    824
    Deptford. It would be in the recollection of the Committee that on the previous night he moved, and afterwards withdrew, an Amendment to the Schedule with regard to the home market at Islington, which was under the control of the Corporation. The case of the two markets, however, was really inseparably connected, because the Corporation would insist upon mixing up the two accounts. He showed, on a former occasion, that the Corporation of London had been given a most singular monopoly of the markets in the Metropolis. They had not only a monopoly of existing markets, but no other person, or body, or local authority, could erect any market within a radius of seven miles; and, therefore, the Corporation were peculiarly bound to Parliament to carry out the enormous powers which it had given them in a reasonable way. Well, the tolls which the City levied in these cattle markets were not considered reasonable by those who were engaged in the trade. Nor did he think they were reasonable in the interests of the consumer, for they did operate as a tax upon meat, and thus pressed upon the consumer. The evidence which was given before the Select Committee of that House which sat last year was very strong in that direction. He would not take up the time of the Committee by referring to it at any length. It was shown that the Corporation were raising an enormous revenue. Those representing the City were asked whether the charges were inserted only as a maximum, and whether it was contemplated that they might be altered? They replied—"Quite so. The Corporation recognize it as the principle on which they conduct the markets. They do not desire to realize a large revenue from their markets; and when they are paid their outlay and interest they contemplate that the tolls should be reduced as the necessities require." The hon. Baronet who had charge of the Bill had said that he thought there already existed a power to alter the tolls. There was at present no such power. He saw that the hon. Baronet nodded assent; and the Committee might take it, therefore, that there was no power under the existing law to reduce these tolls. That being the case, and as they were Parliamentary tolls, he thought he could show that there was

    825
    fair ground for their reduction. The City authorities contended that the case had not yet arisen which they contemplated in their reply to the question put by the Select Committee. They said that they had not yet been recouped for their outlay, or paid a fair interest for their money. He was aware that their accounts showed that to be the case; but he disputed the soundness of these accounts. They mixed up the case of the Islington Market with that of the Deptford Market, and there had been a very large loss on the former caused by enormous street improvements which the City had made in connection with that Market. If he wanted to go into this matter at length, he might also point out that there was a great deal to be said as to the character of the City administration of the Markets. He thought he could show that the Corporation did not make that use of the Islington Market which they might, or get the return which they might from the tolls which they at present levied. But however that might be, he had before shown that the revenue which they were now getting from their Deptford Market was of a most enormous character. The City said that during the last few years there had been a loss on the whole; but he asked the Committee to put entirely out of sight the case of a few years. They were dealing with matters as they stood, and were likely to be in the future. There was no reason to suppose that the use made of the Deptford Market was likely to fall off. On the contrary, there was every reason to suppose that it was likely to increase. There was no probability that the cattle coming from such countries as Germany, Schleswig-Holstein, and the Netherlands, would be permitted to go through the country. He had before shown that the tolls which were at present levied at Deptford Market gave the Corporation a revenue so large that last year it amounted to £40,000; and he worked out for the Committee the expenses of the Corporation then, and showed that upon that revenue there must have been a profit of £29,000. The City had prepared an answer to that statement, in which they tried to show that their clear profit in the year was only £17,000. But even £17,000 was a very large sum indeed if there was reason to suppose that
    826
    it was likely to last in years to come. They had not yet got from the Corporation any statement as to what was the nature of their expenses; but he thought that he had made a very fair estimate of those expenses in the figures which he had placed before the Committee. But however that might be, he called the attention of the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury to this point. He was not urging that the hon. Baronet should put the Schedule of tolls which he was about to move into the Act of Parliament, if he found any other way of meeting the case. He stated, on the previous night, that if the hon. Gentleman liked to propose that the Committee should give him power to reduce the existing tolls, he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) should be satisfied with that power, and should not ask the Committee to divide upon the question of statutory tolls being placed in the Bill. He begged to move the following Schedule, to follow Schedule 2:—

    Schedule 3.

    Maximum Charges for Wharfage, and Market Charges at the Deptford Cattle Market.

    s.

    d.

    Beasts, per head

    2

    6

    Calves per head

    1

    0

    Sheep per head

    0

    4

    Pigs per head

    0

    4

    Lairages.

    Beasts, per head per night

    0

    3

    Calves per head per night

    0

    2

    Sheep per head per night

    0

    0¾

    Pigs per head per night

    0

    1

    SIR HENEY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he stated to the Committee on the previous night, after going carefully into this matter, the grounds which led him to believe that the time, at all events, had not arrived when the alteration in the tolls proposed by the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea ought to be adopted. He admitted, however, that he was in error when he stated that he thought a power already existed for the alteration of the tolls; and what he would suggest to the Committee would be, that on the Report he should introduce into Clause 37 of the Bill, a clause which dealt with bye-laws of the local authorities by the Privy Council, a power to the following effect:—
    "The local authorities shall make a yearly Return to the Privy Council of their receipts and expenditure respecting the markets; "—

    827
    that, he would remark, was already done—
    "and the Privy Council on being satisfied, on inquiry, that the tolls may properly be reduced, regard being had to the expense of the markets and any charges secured on the tolls, and to the other circumstances of the case, may require the local authority to submit for approval a new Schedule of tolls; and, on their failure to do so, may prescribe a new Schedule by Order in Council."
    That would give the Privy Council all needful power in this matter, and enable them to carry out what he knew the City authorities themselves were anxious to do—namely, that a profit should not be made by them out of the introduction of foreign animals into the country, but that their tolls should practically be so adjusted as really to make their income meet their expenditure. He was not satisfied that such was the case now, or that the reduction would at once take place; but the introduction of such a power as he had suggested into the Bill would get over the difficulty which had been pointed out by the hon. Baronet, and protect the public against large tolls in any case where the circumstances of the case permitted of their being reduced.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERthought that the Secretary to the Treasury had very fairly met the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea. He (Mr. W. E. Forster) did not think it would be quite fair to reduce the charges, from the experience of last year. No doubt, last year showed a very considerable profit; but he was inclined to hope that it might prove to have been an exceptional year, and that it might not be necessary to slaughter so many animals in future years as had been slaughtered last year. The Gentlemen who represented the City could not object to this proposal, as it simply enabled them to be thoroughly heard before the Privy Council; and, in the event of the Privy Council being convinced that they were making a profit, they might take steps to bring down the charges to the point at which it was originally intended they should stand—namely, of not allowing a profit to be made, but of yielding a fair return as interest on the money that had been expended.
    MR. CHARLEYsaid, he understood the existing tolls to have been fixed by the Privy Council, and the Amendment
    828
    of the hon. Baronet would be quite contrary to the principle of free trade, and destroy the elasticity which ought to exist in the adjustment of the expenditure and the income of the market. He would just mention one fact in connection with the market, and that was, that since its opening, to the 1st of January last, the amount of expenditure over income had been no less than £80,890.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I accept the Amendment suggested by the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury.
    MR. ALDERMAN COTTONcould assure the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), that anything which the Government thought ought to be done in the interests of the public would be carried out by the Corporation.
    SIR ANDREW LUSKdenied that the City of London had practically any monopoly of the markets. ["Oh!"] It was so. They had no more monopoly of the markets than that which they possessed with regard to the maintenance of the streets. It was simply a municipal arrangement for the benefit of the entire community, and it conferred no benefit upon any individual. The arrangement which had now been come to was a sensible and good one, and he entirely approved of it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    On Question, "That the Bill, as amended, be reported to the House?"
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that before the Bill was reported to the House he should like on his own behalf—and he thought he might say also on behalf of the Government—to thank the Committee for the way in which they had assisted the Government in passing this measure. Its importance fully justified the care and attention which the Committee had bestowed upon it. He believed that the result of their labours would be that the Bill would be found to form a substantial addition to the legislation of the country for protecting them from the diseases which had so long devastated their flocks and herds; and, as such, it would realize the expectations that he himself had formed of it—namely, that, instead of being

    829
    restrictive as against the trade on which this country 'was so dependent, it would increase rather than otherwise that trade by the protection which was given against disease.
    Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 286.]

    BISHOPRICS BILL.— [Lords.]
    (Mr. Assheton Cross.)
    [BILL 197.] COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Assheton Cross.)
    MR. J. COWEN, in rising to move—
    "That, in the opinion of this House, it is undesirable, so long as the Episcopal Church continues to be established by law, to increase the number of Bishops,"
    said, the Bill before the House proposed to deal with the internal arrangements of the Established Church. He was not a member of that Church. He did not believe in all the 200 or 300 propositions contained in the Thirty-nine Articles. The rule of a Church by a Hierarchy of Archbishops, Bishops, and Priests, was, in his judgment, despotic in principle and unwise in policy. English Episcopacy in the past had been a persecuting body; and to-day its spirit was narrow, illiberal, and exclusive. Its Representatives in the other House of the Legislature had only been conspicuous there for their hostility alike to political freedom and commercial and social progress. He knew that these principles were not shared by many Members of that House. He was not arguing in their defence. He was merely stating them to show how inconsistent the law was, which required a person entertaining such, views to give an opinion upon the mode of management of a Church to which both on points of rule and doctrine he was so strongly opposed. That was the penalty imposed upon Churchmen for maintaining the connection between their communion and the State. If they took State pay, they must submit to State control. The two were reciprocal —object and measure. If they surrendered the power and the prestige that sprang from a Government alliance, they
    830
    would be freed from such interference; but as long as they retained it, the doctrines and government of their Church would be subjected to the criticism, and, to some extent, the control of Jews as well as of Christians, of adherents of the Presbyterian, the Papal, and the Greek faiths, as well as of Episcopalians. They must endure the comments of all manner of Dissenters, from the orthodox and evangelical Methodist to the latitudinarian Rationalist. He felt the incongruity of such a position so much, that he would have abstained from interfering in the discussion had it not been that the district in which he lived was directly affected by the Bill. It did not propose to increase the number of Bishops in the House of Lords, it was true; but the Bishops created by the measure might be, and in some cases would become, Members of the other House of the Legislature. It was only right that the House of Commons should have an opportunity of passing in review a project that proposed another mode of making fresh Peers. But while admitting the force of that demand, the absurdity of calling on a man holding his opinions to pass judgment on the internal affairs of the Church was so palpable, that had it not been that the Bill proposed to fasten a Bishop on the borough he represented, he would have been content to give a silent opposition to it. His first objection to the proposal was that there was no popular demand for it. The number of Petitions that had been presented in its favour, the number of meetings that had been held in its support, were insignificant. Through the ordinary avenues and agencies by which Parliament was made acquainted with the drift and strength of public opinion, no expression of feeling in its favour had been manifested. The only persons, as far as he knew, who had concerned themselves for the Bill were women, clergymen, and that small but intelligent section of laymen who took an aesthetic and architectural interest in ecclesiastical matters. The Government complained, and not without reason, of the backward state of Public Business. The Session began three weeks sooner than usual, and it was likely to continue a fortnight longer than was customary. There were still 30 Bills and Resolutions on the Order Book promoted by the Ministry. Some of them were only formal; but others were

    831
    of first importance. A Bill that was recommended in the Queen's Speech— that for codifying the Criminal Law, and which, he cheerfully allowed, reflected credit on the Administration, and redounded to the honour of the hon. and learned Gentlemen who had introduced it—that Bill, which he believed would, if carried, more intimately affect the ordinary life of the common people of this country than any that had been passed of recent years, had been abandoned in consequence of the want of time to discuss it. Another measure that the Government were pledged in honour to promote—the principle of which had been discussed in that House for 30 or 40 years, and which proposed to give representative government to the counties—had been relegated to the limbo of Parliamentary innocents. Other proposals submitted by the President of the Local Government Board, not of great importance, but still useful, had been dropped after their course in the House had been considerably advanced. The reason for these abandonments was that the Ministry had not sufficient time at their disposal to discuss them. Yet they were called upon to debate a Bill to-day which there had been no expression of a desire for on the part of the public. He did not presume to advise Ministers how they should use the limited time at their disposal before Parliament rose. It would be an offence on his part to give advice on such a subject; but he believed he was speaking within his right as a Member of Parliament, when he said he thought it would be wiser for them to devote the remaining days of the Session to the promotion of measures that were really wanted, and not to the promotion of Bills like the present, which interested only a fraction of the public. And a fraction of the fraction alone were anxious for the enactment. The Bill proposed to establish a Bishopric in Northumberland. There was once a Bishopric in that county—that of Lindisfarne. It existed in the mists of history. Pleasant memories, however, of the lives and labours of the Lindisfarne Prelates had descended even to the present time. Those men were really pastors of their flocks. They interested themselves in the material and moral, as well as in the spiritual, welfare of those amongst whom their lot was cast. They were the guides,
    832
    philosophers, and friends of their neighbours and parishioners. But they lived before the time when Bishops had begun to raise their mitred fronts in Courts and Parliaments. There was not one attribute in common between the ancient and apostolic Bishops and the modern Ecclesiastical creations. No one, he believed, would object to an increase of such Bishops as there once lived at Lindisfarne; but what they did resent was the increase of such State officials as the Bill before them sought to establish. There had been repeated attempts to found a Bishopric in Newcastle. Edward VI. proposed to start a See there. Queen Elizabeth revived the project; and that stout old Presbyter, John Knox himself, was once thought of as a Prelate. When the Bishopric of Ripon was founded in 1836, and that of Manchester was created in 1847, the idea of a Bishopric in Newcastle was once more mooted. In 1851, and again in 1854, the scheme was submitted to the other House of the Legislature, and discussed in clerical gatherings by Dr. Philpotts and others. Up to this time, however, the scheme had never resolved itself into practical shape. He recalled these facts for the purpose of observing that all the projects for establishing a Bishopric had been made by Monarchs, or ministers, or clerical bodies outside and away from Northumberland; by men, indeed, who were ignorant of the modes of thought and feeling of the population for whom they aspired to legislate. He had a fair knowledge of the history of Newcastle, and he could not call to his recollection a single occasion when an effort of any importance had been made outside the Clergy in favour of the establishment of a Bishopric, except that commenced by his old Friend, the late Sir John Fife, some 23 years ago. A proposition to petition in favour of a Bishopric was made by that gentleman; but it was drowned in a sea of good-natured banter and derision. They required many things in Newcastle. They wanted a purer atmosphere and a higher culture —they wished to be freed from the material contaminations consequent on their rough and energetic industries, and to have put before the people a more artistic and elevated ideal of life—but they did not want a Bishopric. They did not want planted down in their midst an institution that would tend to weaken

    833
    the springs of intellectual independence, and cast a fetter over thought. ["No, no!"] Well, they had a Bishopric at Durham, and that was near enough. It was somewhat remarkable that, although the Church of England had for generations drawn a larger measure of wealth from the Diocese of Durham—considering its size and considering its population—than from any district of like extent in the country, yet that Body never had, and had not now, any strong hold on the affections and convictions of the people of the North. It was difficult to measure the strength of different religious Bodies in the country. Statistics were at best misleading, and yet they were the only means by which an approximate estimate of the position of the Churches could be formed. When the Census was taken in 1851, an attempt was made to enumerate the strength of all the sects in the country. On a given Sunday in March of that year, all the people who were found attending churches or chapels were counted, and the numbers recorded in the Census Papers. It was hoped that by such means some approximation could be formed of the relative strength of the competing Bodies. On the day in question, there were found attending the places of worship in connection with the Church of England, in the county of Northumberland, 37,000 persons; in the county of Durham, 29,000 persons—in all 66,000. On the same day there were attending the Dissenting chapels in Northumberland, 65,000 persons; and in Durham, 50,000—making a total of 115,000. In the two counties, there was an attendance in the Catholic churches of 15,000. In round numbers, therefore, on the day named, while there were only66,000 persons attending the Church of England in the Diocese of Durham, there were 130,000 attending the Nonconformist and Catholic chapels; or, to put it in another way, the attendance in the Church was a little more than one-half what it was at the other places of worship. But these figures did not represent correctly the relative strength of the various Bodies. Knowing that the attendance was to be counted on that day, efforts were made by all parties, no doubt, to have as large a number present as could be obtained. To, the Church the children of the National Schools, Sunday Schools, the inmates of
    834
    hospitals and asylums, and the poor people from the workhouses were all drummed up with a view of augmenting those to be counted. If reasonable deductions were made for such exceptional worshippers, and only independent men and women were reckoned, it would be found that the comparison between the Church and Dissent was more favourable to Nonconformity than those figures at first sight showed. Other information was supplied by the Census in that year, which he would quote from. It had been estimated by clerical experts that no district was sufficiently supplied with church accommodation that did not provide sittings for at least 50 per cent of the population. Some people contended that instead of being 50 per cent of seats, there ought to be 75. But Dr. Chalmers—whose authority, he believed, would be accepted by all parties—split the difference, and said if the churches had seats for 60 per cent of the population, that that would be enough. Now, at the Census in 1851, the proportion of sittings to population provided by the Church in Durham was 17 per cent; in Northumberland, 18 per cent; and in Newcastle, 11 percent; while the proportion of sittings to population provided by the Nonconformists in Durham was 28 per cent; in Northumberland, 30 per cent; and in Newcastle, 22 per cent. This Return showed that the Dissenters and the Catholics not only attended places of worship in greater numbers than the members of the Established Church, but they provided, at that time, twice as many sittings. Hon. Gentlemen would, no doubt, contend that this information had reference to a time that was long since past. To use a well-known phrase, much had happened since then. The population and wealth had both increased. Not only the character of the community, but the aspect of the country, had changed. He was free to admit that the Church of England had made great and honourable efforts during the last quarter of a century. They did not possess now similar official Returns to those they had in 1851; but he was able to quote, from a publication issued with the sanction and under the patronage of the Bishop and Clergy of Durham, figures that would show what had been recently done in that district by Churchmen for the propagation of their faith. During the

    835
    episcopate of Dr. Baring, there had been expended in building new churches, £267,723; in restoring and enlarging old churches, £119,313; in establishing burial grounds, £12,825; in building schools in connection with the Church, £109,378. In all, there had been raised by Churchmen in the Diocese of Durham, between 1863 and 1876, no less than £509,239. He quoted these figures to the honour of that sect. He knew that in the North of England cynical and censorious people were accustomed to explain this large expenditure by declaring that it was the result of the abnormal prosperity of the coal and iron trade a few years ago. Coalowners and ironmasters had amassed wealth rapidly, and it had become a sort of fashion with them either to build new churches or to improve old ones. Men who were not distinguished for their personal piety strove to make up for individual deficiencies by providing better church accommodation for their less affluent neighbours. That he knew was the reason given by some hypercritical persons for this large expenditure. But he dismissed such an atrabilious way of accounting for what had been done; and he held that it reflected the highest credit on the liberality of the Church in the North of England that, during the last 13 or 14 years, they had collected for it an annual sum of something like £36,300. If he was to draw any deduction from these figures, it would be this—the liberality that Churchmen had shown went to prove that when the necessity arose they were not only willing but capable of providing for religious ordinances amongst themselves. It was a common argument with the opponents of Voluntaryism that the Church could not sustain itself without State help. He thought the fact that the Church in the Diocese of Durham could find men sufficiently liberal to contribute yearly such a handsome sum as upwards of £36,300 for religious and ecclesiastical purposes was a conclusive answer to this objection. He was astonished that members of the Church of England— who were continually complaining of the thraldom under which the Church had to live—did not throw themselves on the liberality of their partizans, and sever their connection with the State at once and for ever. What had been done in Durham was a proof that if
    836
    Churchmen so desired, they could easily sustain their Body without extraneous aid. But if the Church had increased in numbers and in influence during the last 25 years, Dissent and Catholicism had not stood still. If it was difficult to get accurate statistics as to the state of the Established Church, it was much more difficult to get dependable figures showing the position of the various Nonconforming Bodies. There was not one organization, but several; and it was not easy to collect statistics showing their progress over a given period and area. But, from the information he had been able to obtain, he was justified in saying that in the two counties of Durham and Northumberland the Dissenters and the Catholics had, during the last quarter of a century, not only expended as large a sum in building chapels and schools as the Church had done, but they had absolutely expended one-half as much again. The consequence was that the position of the different Bodies to-day was not altered for the better, so far as the Church was concerned. On the contrary, Dissent and Catholicism had increased, not only as fast and as much as the Church, but they had progressed fully one-half more. That was so far as the erection of churches, of schools, and the attendance at them were concerned. It might be taken, therefore, that the position of the different sects had not substantially altered since 1851, and what alteration had been made had not been to the advantage of the Established Church in the North of England. There were, in that district, a number of old English Catholics. They were not a numerous body, but they were an influential one. They were the representatives and descendants of the men who espoused the cause of the Stuarts under the leadership of the ill-fated Lord Derwentwater, Lord Widdrington, and General Forster. There had been a large immigration of Irish workmen to the North of England during the last 25 years. Wherever there were mines and factories their Irish fellow-countrymen came, and the Catholic Church had made great and important strides over the period to which he was referring. They now constituted a powerful and energetic Body. The Nonconformists were numerous; but probably not so numerous, proportionately, as they were in some other counties of England. The

    837
    two most growing Bodies were the Methodists and the Presbyterians. All persons concerned in mining operations were under a lasting debt of gratitude to the Methodists for the energy and devotion with which they had carried not only religious, but secular instruction to the distant pit villages and obscure manufacturing districts. When the Church was revelling in indolence and wealth, the poor Methodists were engaged in this work of Christian enlightenment. The Church of England had recently attempted to follow in their footsteps; but they only followed at a considerable distance in the rear. Episcopacy had never been popular in the Northern part of the Island. Some might remember the incident of Jenny Geddes throwing a three-legged stool at the head of a Church of England clergyman when he attempted to use the English Prayer Book in an Edinburgh kirk. This good lady gave forcible, though not very polite, expression to the popular feeling against Prelacy at that time. She typified and accentuated the Scotch dislike to Episcopacy. The feeling that existed 200 years ago lives to this day, only its expression may have been moderated. Large numbers of Scotchmen had come across to Northumberland and Durham, and brought with them their intelligence, their personal energy, and enterprize, and, at the same time, their religious convictions and their form of worship. The Presbyterian Church was now a powerful organization in these two counties. They might put it as they liked—they might explain it as they chose—but Episcopacy was an Ecclesiastical Autocracy. Presbyterianism was Ecclesiastical Constitutionalism, or Republicanism. The latter form of Church government was much more adapted to the breezy, independent, and democratic atmosphere of Tyneside than the former. Hon. Gentlemen opposite would tell them, in reply, that the statistics that he had adduced, and the arguments he had drawn from them, instead of making against the Bill, made in its favour. They would contend that if the Church occupied comparatively such an inferior position, instead of being an argument against making more Bishops, it was an argument in favour of creating them. He knew that he would be encountered by that mode of reasoning, and he would reply to it
    838
    by anticipation. It was a settled principle of political economy that the supply should be regulated by the demand. What he maintained was that there was no demand for another Bishop in the North of England; and there was, therefore, no need to supply one. Hon. Gentlemen resented the application of the principle of political economy to Ecclesiastical questions. They held that if there was no demand for churches, or for Bishops, the demand should be created, and the State should be called in to assist its creation. He considered that such a procedure was unjust, and for this reason—the Government of this country was the Representative, or supposed Representative, of the entire people. There were upwards of 30,000,000 of inhabitants in these Islands. Some were Jews, and some Christians—some Protestants, and some Catholics. There were men of all faiths, and men of no faith. The Government derived its strength and its authority from men of these varied religions; and he contended that it was unfair to use the power that the united Body gave for the purpose of propagating the doctrines of one sect. Let hon. Gentlemen realize their position by considering how they would feel if they were Dissenters from the Established Church. Suppose the doctrines of the Church were Unitarian, or suppose they were Papal, how would conscientious Episcopalians like to have the power of the State used for the purpose of propagating Unitarian beliefs or Catholic beliefs, from both of which they strongly dissented? They should act upon the Scriptural injunction, and do unto others as they would like to be done by. He held it was no part of the duty of a Government to proselytize in favour of either one form of religious worship or the other. The Government had no right to undertake the work of religious revivalists. He was met on that ground by being assured that the Church was a very cosmopolitan Body. Men holding the doctrines of Dr. Colenso, or the doctrines of Dr. Pusey, could be equally accepted as members. No doubt this was true, and that the Church of England called everything fish that came to its net. It was organized in a way calculated to gain support from all quarters. It had a Papal Ritual, a Calvinistic Creed, an Arminian Clergy, and an Erastian form

    839
    of Church government. Such a composite organization, he would be told, might be sustained without any serious injury to the conscience of anyone. Acting up to this idea, whenever Churchmen attempted to find arguments in favour of fresh Bishops, they invariably reckoned up the population, and based their demand on the fact of its increase. In the case to which he was specially directing the attention of the House, for example, the population of the county of Northumberland was 400,000, and that of the county of Durham 700,000—in all about 1,100,000. This was nearly double what it was a few years ago. There was no part of the country that had increased more rapidly in population than the county of Durham. The argument of the supporters of the Bill was, that if one Bishop was required when the population was half what it was now, two Bishops were required at the present time. He did not allow the force of that mode of reasoning. It went upon the assumption that the increase of population had gone entirely in favour of the Church. This was not the fact. As he had shown, the adherents of the Church were not as numerous as the adherents of the other Bodies. He repudiated entirely the idea that the religion of the nation and the religion of the State were one and the same. The religion of the nation was Christianity— the religion of the State was Episcopacy. The Episcopalians, therefore, were not warranted, in calculating the necessity for a new Bishop, in holding that the increase in population had gone to swell their numbers only. During the last two generations, the population of England had doubled; but the increase in the numbers of beneficed clergymen in the Established Church had only been at the rate of 15 per cent. He repeated that while the population had doubled, the provision made by the Church had only been at the rate he had just named. Even in providing places of worship, the Church had not kept pace with the population. In 1725, the proportion of churches to population in England was one to every 760 persons. In 1851, there was one church to every 1,273 people. In 1875 there was one church for 1,497 people. In other words, while the income of the Church had steadily increased, and. the population had largely augmented, its relative hold on
    840
    the people had steadily decreased, even during the last quarter of a century. They were told by early Ecclesiastical writers that when the Emperor Constantine proclaimed territorial jurisdiction for the Bishops, a weird and wistful voice was heard declaring through the stately chambers and corridors of the Byzantine Palace—"This day poison is poured into the Church; this day poison is poured into the Church." No one knew from whence the strange warning came, and no answer was vouchsafed to it. A reply, however, might now be sent through the long vista of years, and the experience of the Church of England might be cited as proving the truthfulness of the prediction that was uttered 1,500 years ago on the banks of the Bosphorus. The bane of the Church of England—the canker that was eating its heart away—was its wealth and its poverty. At one and the same time it was the richest and the poorest Church in Christendom. They had huge heaps of money scraped up in favoured places, and the persons that possessed it lived in splendour and luxury, while all around them were poverty, desolation and often want. The revenue of the Church was £7,300,000 a-year. Of this £530,000— more than half a million—was distributed amongst 172 men. These were the Archbishops, Bishops, Deans, and other Church and Cathedral dignitaries. The average annual income of the older Bishops was £6,000 a-year—or, to put the figures more correctly, it should be said that it was £5,600 a-year in cash, and £400 a-year for the rent of the palaces and castles that they lived in. This was the average; but some had incomes much in excess of it. The Archbishop of Canterbury had an annual income of £15,000 a-year and two Palaces. In some Privy Council Order it was shown that His Grace had nearly 500 acres of land for pleasure ground. He could not recognize any resemblance between a Bishop with two palaces, an income of £15,000 a-year, and pleasure grounds 500 acres in extent, and the humble fishermen of Galilee, whose principles he professed to teach, and whose lives he aspired to emulate. He invited the House to contrast the incomes of these high authorities of the Church with the salaries of the working Clergy. There were some 13,300 beneficed clergymen in the Church of Eng-

    841
    land, and their average incomes were £270 a-year. The average income of the clergymen in the county of Durham was about £350 or £360 a-year. But these figures did not correctly describe the incomes of the Clergy. Several of them had incomes amounting to £1,000, £2,000, and £3,000 a-year, and others had much less than the average amount named. A few years ago there were in England 297 clergymen receiving under £50 a-year; 1,629 receiving under £100 a-year; 1,602 receiving under £150 a-year; and 4,882 receiving under £200 a-year. This state of matters, which he could not do otherwise than describe as disgraceful to the Church, had been somewhat improved of late by the action of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Things were not so bad now as they formerly were—but still, even in 1873, there were 1,163 ministers in the Church of England receiving only £100 a-year, and there were 3,189 receiving between £150 and £200 a-year. The average incomes of the curates was about £80 a-year—very little better than an ordinary mechanic or miner in prosperous times. There were societies in existence for the purpose of collecting funds for educating curates' children, and for supplying them with increased incomes and clothes. Every year he received circulars from bodies of this description, asking for contributions for these purposes, and soliciting, also, cast-off wearing apparel for the poor curates of the Church of England. The Bishop of Manchester, speaking recently, declared that there were curates in the Established Church that got flesh meat for their dinners as seldom as the agricultural labourers of Wiltshire and Dorsetshire. He had seen statements in the clerical papers to the effect that some of the poor ministers were unable to provide firing in the cold wintry weather. This condition of things was derogatory to the Church of England. They might explain it, or apologize for it, or excuse it as they chose; but the broad fact still remained, that while one section of the Church received incomes superior to that of the Prime Minister of England, the men who did the work were subsisting on salaries totally inadequate to maintain them in ordinary decency. If, instead of proposing to increase the number of Bishops, the earnest members of the Church of England would set about a re-distribu-
    842
    tion of the vast funds which that Corporation possessed, they would accomplish both for their Church and country a much more useful and honourable work. It was useless to expect that the Church would ever have any hold on the affections of the people while these gross anomalies existed. It might wield a certain weight in special circles; but it could never touch either the hearts or sympathies of the nation while its resources were so unequally and so inequitably dispensed. The people asked for more light, more mental liberty. They required a better appreciation of their responsibilities as men and as citizens. They wanted a broader diffusion of the principles, and a more faithful practice of the spirit and the teaching of the Founder of Christianity, and it was proposed to give them more Bishops, more sleek and oily parsons—more of a superficial and artificial Ecclesiasticism. They should have an Institution—call it a Church if they liked—not of priests, but of, and from, and for the people, into which any man, however poor, and however ignorant he might be, could enter and take a heart to be purified, an intellect to be enlightened, and a spirit to be elevated. They wanted a Church in which there was absolute intellectual freedom, and complete Christian equality, which would be a place of refuge for the weary, of shelter for the poor, of solace for the sick, of help for the desolate, and of tribuneship for the oppressed —not a ring of Parsons and Bishops rolling in wealth, and "swaggering in the foretop of the State."
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, it is undesirable, so long as the Episcopal Church continues to to established by law, to increase the number of Bishops,"—(Mr. Joseph Cowen,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he would not enter into any discussion in detail with respect to the points raised by the hon. Member for Newcastle; because he had, only two years ago, fully expounded the question on the occasion when the Bill then introduced was passed.

    843
    The case was a very simple one. The sole object of the Bill was to enable the Church of England to do her duty as long as she was by law established. He thought it was hardly generous or wise to prevent her doing so, as would happen if the Bill were defeated. The real fact of the matter was, there was more need of Bishops. The work of the various Dioceses had, in consequence of the increase of population in certain parts of the country, vastly grown; the Bishops were over-taxed in their energies, and it was necessary that other Bishoprics should be appointed. He had had letters from Bishops, pointing out the need of further machinery being provided for Church purposes, some of which were even of a painful nature. There was no more hard-working class of men than the Bishops. He asked in no sectarian spirit whether, for instance, the labours of the Bishop of Manchester had not conduced greatly to the benefit, moral, spiritual, and even material, of the Diocese over which he presided? He had received a letter from the Bishop of Durham, in which he said that the churches in the Diocese of Durham had increased since 1857from 171 to 342, or 70percent; while the number of Clergy in the same time had risen from 222 to 531. He could not believe that the House would refuse the power which the members of the Church now asked. The case had been pressed on the Government two years ago, when the House passed the second reading of the Bill by a very large majority. The Bill was designed to accomplish Christian, and not sectarian work. He appealed not simply to the Christian feeling of the House, but to its candour and generosity, to deal fairly by the Church, and give its members the power of carrying on its work which was not refused to every other religious Body.
    MR. E. JENKINSsaid, no doubt, there were many reasons why some hon. Members might wish to avoid entering upon the details of this question. But the House had a certain duty to perform to its constituents outside, and they were bound not to allow such a measure as this to pass without fairly discussing it. Hon. Members opposite might feel pained because on this side of the House those who were not members of the Church of England entered upon the discussion of the measure. That state of things, however, was due to the ano-
    844
    malous position in which the Church was placed in relation to the House of Commons, and he could not sit in that House without vindicating its rights to interfere in any discussion. What, he asked, was the object of the Bill? It was enough to startle a man, and would startle any Christian. It would startle St. Paul, he was sure, could he walk into the House and open the Bill, for what did the Bill contain? It stated that Her Majesty, by Order in Council, might found new Bishoprics. He asserted that it was not in accordance with the consistency of the position of the House that they should be asked to give their sanction to such a proposal. That state of things could not exist in the Church of England for a very long period, and it was by no means honourable to Christianity that four Bishops should appear on the floor of the House and ask to be raised to Bishoprics? He objected to the Bill, among other reasons, because the Bishops already in existence were not doing their duty. Some of them, in fact, were openly defying the Privy Council; and whilst they received State pay, they taught doctrines utterly at variance with the requirements of the law. As an instance, he cited the case of the Bishop of Bombay, who, at a recent meeting held at Oxford, spoke in favour of the Churches of Christendom being re-united. In other words, he expressed himself in favour of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church being brought together. That alone was sufficient to cause him to resist the Bill.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLadmitted that additional Bishops were required in the Church of England, and said, he would have voted for the Bill if it merely enabled persons to contribute voluntarily towards their support; but he objected to taking the overpay of the existing Bishops for the establishment of new ones. He should, therefore, vote against the Bill.
    MR. SULLIVANsaid, this was the third or fourth time since he occupied a seat in the House on which he had listened to discussions upon Ecclesiastical matters; but, as he was a Roman Catholic, hitherto he had abstained from any part in the debates. However, he could not now forgive himself for having been so long silent; for it was an anomalous and hardly a creditable circumstance

    845
    that the truly domestic affairs of any religious community in this country should be brought before that House, to be determined by the votes of Catholics, Baptists, Presbyterians, and men of every shade of religious belief. The time had arrived when, in justice to the conscientious feelings of the members of the Established Church, these matters should be withdrawn from the decision of that overworked and overtaxed Assembly. The position which he, as a Roman Catholic Member of the House of Commons, was placed in was a rather peculiar one, and it really was not easy to decide what course he ought to take. How could he abstain from voting upon this matter without giving up his functions as a Member of Parliament; and how could he give a vote upon it unless he was in a position to decide what was sound Protestantism and what was not sound Protestantism? He must respectfully tell members of the Church of England that, before they asked for such measures as these, they ought to emancipate the Church of England from State control, and that their first step should be to obtain for the Church of England home rule and self-government by restoring Convocation, and making that body a reality. He spoke as a Catholic who wished to see the Protestants of this country enjoying in Church matters that full liberty of conduct which he claimed for his own communion. Would it not add to their dignity if they were to free themselves once for all from the meddling interference of that House? This was the first time that he had ever spoken upon this subject; but he thought it was only fair that he should state his views.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) had stated that this was the first time he had ever spoken upon this subject; and he could only say that he hoped his hon. and learned Friend would not favour the House again upon it with such a speech as he had just now made. For his own part, he must confess that this was one of the rare occasions that he found himself out of sympathy with the views of his hon. and learned Friend. He had had occasion to converse with Roman Catholics in Ireland frequently upon this subject, and he thought that an entirely different view was held in Ireland to
    846
    that entertained by his hon. and learned Friend. Prior to the year 1829, Catholics did not make it a part of their creed that they were to endeavour to destroy the Established Church of this country. The establishment of a State Church was one of the strongest doctrines of the Catholic religion. ["No, no!"] Hon. Members might say "No, no;" but he thought it was an established fact nevertheless. In every country in Europe where it was possible there was a Roman Catholic Church supported by the State. In this country there was a Protestant Church established by the State. He quite agreed that his hon. and learned Friend was quite entitled to object to Protestantism in this country; but he did not think he ought to interfere in Protestant matters. He had always voted, and always should vote, in favour of measures of this kind. They all knew perfectly well that in the regulations of the affairs of life it was essential to have some superior authority; and if they took the modern appointments of Bishops in the Church of England, could anyone say that the recent creation of Bishops in the North of England, especially in the case of the See of Manchester, that the creation of those additional Bishoprics had not been productive of unmixed good? He did not think it was an honest line of argument on the part of hon. Members to pretend to point out blots in the government of the Church of England, and to profess a desire to see them removed, when the real object was to do away with the Established Church altogether.
    MR. RICHARD: I have no desire to interfere in the controversy between the hon. and learned Member for Louth and the hon. Member for Galway, as to the sentiments and obligations of Roman Catholics on this matter, though certainly I should have thought that the hon. and learned Member for Louth was the better authority of the two on such questions. I can assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that it is extremely distasteful to me to have to discuss questions of this nature in the House of Commons; for I feel that it is very difficult to do so without saying something that may be offensive to many whose character I greatly respect, and whose religious susceptibilities I would not willingly wound. But it is not our fault that matters of this kind

    847
    are thrown down for discussion on the floor of this House. I think I can understand and sympathize with the repugnance which many members of the Church of England must feel on such occasions. For the members of any Church to have the most sacred matters pertaining to its doctrine, discipline, and internal economy and administration, dealt with and decided by persons of all kinds of religious opinions and of no religious opinions at all, is a thing totally at variance with my notions of what a Christian community should be; and I am astonished that the humiliation of it does not become intolerable to the serious members of the Church of England. In a former Session, when the first of these modern Episcopal creations wore proposed to the House, I ventured to state my views in opposition to the Bill at considerable length. It is not necessary that I should repeat in full the arguments I then used. I retain all the objections I then expressed to this kind of legislation. I have no wish, by my consent, to take part in the creation of any more of these politico-ecclesiastical officials, whose existence, in my judgment, is not an advantage to either Church or State. As Nonconformists, we object that any class of men should be authorized by the State to perform ecclesiastical and spiritual functions. And we object, further, that these Bills proceed on the assumption that the whole population of this country are members of the Church of England. That is always taken for granted. We are told that in such and such a district there are so many hundreds of thousands of souls who, in effect, are without Episcopal supervision, totally ignoring the fact that there are millions of people in this country who have renounced their allegiance to the Church of England, who do not require, and will not accept, Episcopal supervision. It is not very easy to understand who wants more Bishops. There are a few rich people who are willing to subscribe their money for this purpose; because, perhaps, they consider that a Hierarchical religion is more aristocratic and respectable. But there is no evidence that there is any general desire among the members of the Church of England itself for a multiplication of these officials. Nay, indeed, there is a great deal of evidence to the contrary. If we may take the papers
    848
    and periodicals which represent the various shades of opinion in that Church as any test, we may confidently say that the prevailing feeling is, not a desire for more Bishops, but utter distrust and dislike of those who already exist. Some attempt has been made to galvanize public opinion on this subject. I do not know whether the House is aware of it, but there is a Society in existence for the propagation of Bishops. It is called a "Society for Promoting the Increase of the Episcopate." It is constituted under very high patronage. Among its Vice Presidents there are two Dukes, three Earls, ten Bishops, and two Lords. But it does not seem to inspire much enthusiasm, for, in the year 1874—that is the last Report I have seen, which I now hold in my hand—the total amount of its subscriptions was only £112 1s. 6d., and of that £50 was subscribed by the Duke of Buccleuch. So that, measured by pecuniary contributions, the entire amount of interest felt by the members of the Church of England throughout the Kingdom in the increase of Bishops amounted to £62 1s. 6d. plus £50 worth of interest felt by His Grace of Buccleuch. And how is this interest expressed by Petitions? I have looked at the list of Petitions presented this Session, and up to the 9th of July I find that they numbered 73, signed by 1,545 persons, most of them from clerical bodies; but not only are the persons very few who are in favour of an increase of the Episcopate, but those who do favour it do not wish to see it extended on the lines of this Bill. The Society to which I have referred, three or four years ago, addressed a series of questions on this subject to all the rural deaneries in England and Wales. The first question was, whether more Bishops were necessary and desirable? the second, how they should be paid? and the third, whether the Bishops of the new Sees should have seats in Parliament? I believe there are about 750 rural deaneries in England and Wales. Of these, 460 had replied in 1875. On the first question, there was considerable unanimity; on the second, there was much difference of opinion; on the third, whether the new Bishops should have seats in the House of Lords?—the result was this. Out of 450 rural deaneries, 360 were opposed to the Bishops of the Sees that should be created having seats

    849
    in the House of Lords, by rotation or otherwise; 54 were in favour of a rotation clause; and only three returned an answer in favour of the new Bishops being in Parliament. But this Bill disregards the voice of the Clergy on the matter, and does provide that the new Bishops should have seats in the House of Lords in their turn. I believe there is also great dissatisfaction among the members of the Church of England as to the way in which these Bishops are created. The Church itself has no voice in the matter. That cannot be helped, of course, while the Church is connected with the State. But it is certain that many feel bitterly the anomaly that such a power should be virtually lodged in a House constituted as this is, and it cannot be constituted otherwise; for, so long as it is a Representative Assembly, it must represent all classes and creeds and opinions. For my part, I hope the Church of England will attain the liberty enjoyed by all other religious Bodies. I believe that the humblest Dissenting or Methodist Church in the Kingdom would resent any magisterial or political interference in the appointment of its ministers and the regulation of its affairs as an insult and an ignominy. Let the Church of England, then, have the same liberty and the same power as these possess. But she can have this only on one condition—that of renouncing her exclusive privilege as a Church protected and patronized by the State.
    SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, he did not think it was a desirable thing for the Episcopal Church to ask that House to interfere with its affairs; but as long as the Church was connected with the State, it must submit to what the House of Commons did.
    It being a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till To-morrow.

    METROPOLITAN COMMONS BILL
    On Motion of Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE, Bill to extend to Metropolitan Commons certain provisions of "The Commons Act, 1876," ordered to be brought in by Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE, Mr. COWPER-TEMPLE, and Mr. FAWCETT.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 287.]
    House adjourned at five minutes before Six of the clock.