Lords Sitting of 19 February 1866

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Law of Evidence Amendment * (16); Divorce and Matrimonial Causes * (17).
Second Reading—Telegraph Act Amendment * (13), Committee negatived; Cattle Diseases (14).
Committee—Cattle Diseases (14).
Report—Cattle Diseases (14).
Third Reading—Telegraph Act Amendment * (13); Cattle Diseases (14), and passed.

CATTLE DISEASES BILL— [BILL 14.]
  SECOND READING: COMMITTEE:

    THIRD READING.
    Order of the Day for the Second Reading and for Standing Orders Nos. 37 and 38 to be considered in order to their being dispensed with, read.
    EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I am not in the habit of trespassing at any very great length upon your Lordships' time, and it is not my intention to do so upon the present occasion. There are, however, a few reasons in support of this measure which I feel it desirable to state, but not at any great length, the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) and the noble Lord on the cross-benches having both declared on a former occasion that time was a very great element in the stoppage of the cattle plague. I am compelled to admit that if I went very closely into the details of the measure there are many clauses of which I could not conscientiously recommend the adoption to the Blouse, and many which must inflict great inconvenience if the Act is to be at all effectual for its purpose. On the other hand, it is a great pleasure to me to introduce this Bill to the attention of your Lordships, because I have a strong hope that it will go far to stop the progress of the disease which has so long baffled our endeavours to cope with it. With the provisions of the Bill your Lordships are already generally acquainted, and I believe that it does in a very great measure represent the feelings of the vast majority of the agricultural interests, who are, at any rate, most immediately concerned in the issue of this grave question. In dealing with this Bill there is one point which is to be remembered. Tour Lordships, who all pay so much attention to the subject, have naturally made yourselves aware of what passed in the other House of Parliament,
    732
    and of the very great difficulties that have to be encountered in dealing with the question; and that, since there may exist in some minds a doubt as to the perfect adaptability of this Bill to accomplish all that may be desired, this Bill is to be immediately followed by another containing regulations as to removal of cattle, and other matters, to a certain extent introducing exceptions from that isolation which it is the object of the present measure to establish. It certainly is, in the minds of many, a very great object that we should pass this Bill at once, reserving for introduction into the Bill that will immediately follow it any Amendments that may appear to be necessary. On the other hand, it may be, your Lordships may feel that there are in this Bill clauses which it is not desirable by suspending the Standing Orders to pass into law at once, but rather that it is desirable to wait for that other Bill which is coming up from the other House. This Bill, in the first place, constitutes local authorities to carry out its provisions, and confers upon them the power to appoint inspectors or other officers. The duties of those officers are clearly defined. Among other powers they will be enabled to enter any farm or buildings where they may have reason to suppose that the cattle disease exists. The next portion of the Bill is very important, and relates to the slaughter of animals. We propose by this Bill to give to the local authorities power to destroy all diseased animals, and also to authorize the slaughter of all such animals as, owing to their having been in contact or herded with diseased animals, may be suspected to be liable to the disease; and the Bill further provides for the payment of compensation to owners for cattle which may be thus destroyed. This compensation is to be provided by a local rate, and is in no case to exceed one-half of the value of the animal slaughtered, or the sum of £20 at the utmost. With regard to the removal of cattle, the Bill contains clauses prohibiting entirely the movement of cattle by railway up to the 25th of March, and that cattle imported by sea shall be slaughtered at the port of entry. The rest of the measure consists of matters of detail. It deals, for instance, with the expenses of the local authorities, and with cases in which a voluntary rate may have been self-imposed in the district. There is also a clause as to the lending of money by the

    733
    Public Works Loan Commissioners, to be repaid in seven years; and the rest of the Bill is made up of provisions with regard to legal proceedings and saving clauses. I do most sincerely trust that the measure, attended as its operation must necessarily be with great inconveniences, may prove effectual for the purpose for which it is intended. I am quite sure that the Government will receive all the co-operation which the local authorities can possibly afford. And though, abstractedly, I cannot approve all the provisions which it contains, yet I am very glad to be able to move the second reading of a Bill which appears to meet the wishes of those who have most carefully considered the subject, and who are most immediately affected by the disaster.
    Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord President.)
    THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHsaid, he had no intention of opposing the second reading, but he must express his surprise at the manner in which it was proposed to proceed with the Bill. It was not till that morning that he was aware that the Bill had left the other House of Parliament, and now it was proposed to suspend the Standing Orders that they might pass the Bill with the same rapidity as the House had been asked to give it's consent for suspending the Habeas Corpus in Ireland on Saturday last. No previous intimation had been given by the Government of their intention to carry the Bill through with such extraordinary haste. There were many points in the Bill requiring consideration, and they were in danger of making this a "botched" measure. He protested against a measure of such importance being brought up to that House at the last hour of the night of Saturday, so that their Lordships had not had the opportunity of seeing the Bill till Monday morning, or of communicating with those in distant parts of the country, whose interests the provisions of the Bill vitally affected. Now, on Monday, their Lordships wore asked to suspend their Standing Orders, in order that the Bill might be passed through all its stages at one sitting. Moreover, they were told that they ought to accept the Bill as it stood, because there was coming up from the other House another Bill which would remedy all the deficiencies of the present; but which very probably, having been passed with equal haste, might be found to be equally
    734
    botched. Upon the principle of the Bill, no doubt, their Lordships were agreed; but how, with the suspension of the Standing Orders, was it possible to consider the details? He wished to know as to Clause 5, why the local authorities in Scotland had been entirely changed? For what purpose was this? Had the justices of the peace failed in their duty, had they been negligent, or had one single instance been brought forward in which they had either fallen short in the performance of their duty or exceeded it? He was not aware of any. As far as he was aware, they had done their duty well and fearlessly. Sometimes the orders and regulations which they had to enact were excessively distasteful and unpopular, and in some cases these inflicted hardships on individuals; yet, when the public good rendered it necessary, they had not shrunk from the discharge of their duty. The arrangement proposed was a slur upon the justices of the peace of Scotland. They were now to have a new Court. The Commissioners of Supply and some tenant-farmers to be nominated by the lord-lieutenant, the lord-lieutenant himself, the convener and sheriff, or sheriff-substitute of the county were to form the local authority. Who were the Commissioners of Supply? The qualification was the possession of £100 a year in land, but the body had no judicial power—all it had to do was to collect the land tax and impose the assessment. True, it had by recent statute certain powers with respect to the police, but those powers were merely fiscal. He should certainly move the omission of the clause when it came under discussion, and propose that the local authority in Scotland should be the justices in quarter sessions assembled, as in England. There was necessarily some delay in calling the Commissioners of Supply together, and it would take a fortnight, at least, before anything could be done by them; whereas there was at present a local authority ready at hand: if it should be necessary to take the advice of practical agriculturists words might be put into the clause, enabling certain tenant-farmers to assist the sub-committee. In the south of Scotland, at all the meetings of the justices, the tenant-farmers had been invited to be present, and although they had no hand in issuing the orders, their advice had been very much attended to and had been of great value. By the clause, as explained by the schedule, a separate local authority was placed not

    735
    only in every Parliamentary burgh, but in every burgh which contributed to send a Member to Parliament, which latter were in many cases in Scotland little better than villages, and sometimes the chief magistrate was a butcher, baker, or blacksmith. Surely these were not the persons to set up as a separate local authority. He could not see why the present local authorities in Scotland should be set aside as unworthy and unfit to hold the position they had hitherto occupied. They knew perfectly well the difference between justices in England and justices in Scotland. In England the justices were always upheld by the Superior Courts, but in Scotland it was the reverse. Call a man a sheriff-substitute, and he was immediately a Solon, his knowledge and authority were above all; but if the most astute lawyer and the most talented person were acting as justice of the peace, it would be said, "Oh! he's only a justice, and he cannot be right." That was too often the way in which justices of the peace were spoken of in Scotland. He trusted this clause would be altered, as well as many others which required their Lordships' most anxious consideration. For this reason he counselled caution and delay rather than precipitate action.
    EARL GRANVILLE: In reply to the arguments of the noble Duke, I would say that I believe every one of your Lordships is agreed that it is desirable to pass the second reading of this Bill with unanimity. I have merely proposed the course I have in the full belief that it would be the best; but I have not the slightest desire to force my opinion, and hope your Lordships will judge for yourselves and act in accordance with that judgment. I moved the second reading of the Bill as I supposed pro formâ, and took that opportunity of bringing the principal provisions of the Bill under your Lordships' notice; and if the second reading be agreed to, I shall move the suspension of the Standing Orders, and then that the Committee be negatived—not with the view of precluding your Lordships from considering the Bill clause by clause, but to take the opinion of your Lordships, whether they think it necessary to discuss the clauses seriatim. I will, however, observe that if much of your Lordships' time is occupied in discussing this Bill clause by clause, and then if it be again discussed in the Commons when our Amendments are taken there, and again brought back
    736
    here to be considered, much valuable time will obviously be lost. If such a result should be attended with serious consequences, I trust it will not be laid to the door of Her Majesty's Government.
    THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he could not agree to the principle of the indiscriminate slaughter of cattle ordered by the Bill. He was of opinion that the indiscriminate slaughter of cattle was altogether wrong—it was a principle which would press with great hardship on the country, and unless it was modified, they would have the whole agricultural interest in arms. He was of opinion that the clause might be modified. In some instances compulsory slaughter might be absolutely necessary; but in others it would be a very great injustice, and would be scarcely any provision against the extension of the disease. As he was of opinion that alterations were absolutely necessary, if we were to read this Bill a second time on the understanding that it was to go into Committee and be discussed as usual, clause by clause, he should be the last to throw any charge upon the Government for the delay; but it was absolutely necessary that it should be so discussed. There were Amendments which he considered necessary to various clauses, and he would rather they were introduced in the Bill actually under discussion, than wait for the other Bill not yet come up from the Commons. As to the clause with respect to the local authorities in Scotland, he could not understand by whose advice a slur had been cast upon the magistracy of Scotland, by taking from them powers with which they were invested under the Orders in Council, and giving them to a body totally irresponsible to any public body whatever. Magistrates were responsible in the execution of their duty to certain high authorities; but the Commissioners of Supply and agricultural tenants to be appointed by the Lord Lieutenant were responsible to no one, either for over-straining their duty and doing too much, or for neglecting their duty, and doing too little. He entirely agreed with the noble Duke (the Duke of Buccleuch) in thinking the change was altogether unnecessary, and thought they should take all Parliamentary means of restoring the magistracy in Scotland to the position which they ought to hold under this Bill. He trusted that if the Bill were read a second time, with the unanimous assent of the House, that

    737
    they would then proceed to discuss it in Committee in the usual way.
    THE DUKE OF MONTROSEsaid, he considered it would be a most foolish proceeding to pass a Bill leaving its known defects to be corrected by another Bill which might or might not come before their Lordships. If they made such alterations as they might consider necessary, it would not cause a delay of twenty-four hours in the passage of the Bill. The only point of importance in this Bill was that it stopped the cattle traffic by railway; but at this moment the traffic by road was open, and so were the markets. The other Bill was to deal with the traffic by roads and the general movement of cattle. Until that Bill, therefore, was passed, the work would be only half accomplished; consequently, the delay proposed would not in fact frustrate the main object they had in view. If they merely stopped the railway traffic, the work would only be half done, and it was not till the other Bill came up that they would be able really to attain the object which they all had in view—namely, to stop entirely the traffic in live animals. The Local Authority clause to which the noble Duke referred was a most extraordinary one; and he should like to know whether such a clause would have been permitted in the English part of the Bill. Would their Lordships submit to a clause which proposed to put the county magistrates under the orders of the tenant-farmers and ratepayers?
    THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: When we come to the clause I shall be happy to explain.
    THE DUKE OF MONTROSEunderstood they were not to be permitted to come to the clause at all. They were asked to pass the Bill through all its stages, and postpone the discussion till the second Bill came up. The clause which had been referred to was the most monstrous one that had ever been invented; and it was part of the system of the Edinburgh lawyers to throw over the justices.
    EARL GRANVILLEsaid, it was perfectly true that he had proposed to negative the Committee, in order to meet what he thought was the general feeling of the House; but he was quite ready to take the other course of going into Committee and discussing the Bill clause by clause.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read 2a accordingly.
    Standing Orders Nos. 37 and 38 considered, and dispensed with.
    Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
    House in Committee accordingly.
    Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
    Clause 3 (Definition of Terms).
    THE MARQUESS OF BATHsaid, that this was, in fact, only the skeleton of a Bill. Almost the whole of the important parts had been cut out, and the Bill would be inoperative in all respects but one till another Bill, now before the House of Commons, should have been passed. The present Bill prohibited the removal of cattle by railway, but all the remaining questions relating to the removal of cattle were left untouched. It dealt with the slaughter of diseased animals, but in no way provided for the treatment of infected districts. The two Bills ought to have been discussed together.
    EARL GREYurged the necessity of passing the Bill with as little delay as possible. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Bath) had said that it only dealt with one part of the question; but it gave the power of compulsory slaughter, and it also provided compensation. These were provisions which were really wanted, and they would do much towards stopping the plague. In the next place it stopped all the great markets. It also prohibited the movement of cattle imported from abroad along the roads and canals. By this Bill animals were prohibited from being sent by rail, and already by the Orders in Council they were prohibited, in several counties, from being sent along the roads. This Bill, therefore, would completely stop the removal of cattle for a time, and would meet all that in the first instance was required. These provisions were understood to be quite in accordance with the wishes of the agriculturalists themselves.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 4 (Definitionof "District," "Local Authority," Local Rate, "and" Clerk of Local Authority").
    THE MARQUESS OF BATHhad not a word to say against the clause as it stood, but complained that they were in ignorance as to what powers would be conferred upon the local authorities in the way of granting relaxations, which all admitted were to some extent necessary.
    EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that he could not of course say in what form the Bill

    739
    would come up from the other House; but if it should be found that any objectionable powers were conferred upon the local authorities by the Bill under discussion in the other House, their Lordships would have the opportunity of negativing them on its being sent up to them.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 5 (Local Authorities in Counties in Scotland).
    THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHthought the clause might be struck out, and the powers in Scotland granted by the Act conferred upon the authorities by whom they had heretofore been exercised.
    THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that as the conduct of the Government had been attacked with such extraordinary warmth by the two noble Dukes opposite, he could scarcely avoid—though the matter was one rather of local interest—occupying their Lordships' attention for a few minutes while he explained to their Lordships the course which, had been taken with regard to this clause. The whole dispute was, who should constitute "the local authorities" in Scotland, and it would be better perhaps for him to explain to their Lordships the circumstances of the case. The local authorities in Scotland as constituted by the Order in Council were the justices of the peace, and for this plain reason—the Order in Council was issued under a statute which, owing probably to the circumstance that at the time of its being framed such an event as the cattle plague was never contemplated, happened to be the only one under which such Orders could have been issued. This Act enabled, or had been construed to enable, the Government to delegate its powers to the justices of the peace; but they were purely executive, and there was no power of taxation whatever. But in Scotland there already existed a very old constituted body who exercised the powers of levying rates, and therefore when the Government were going to give the power of levying this rate they naturally gave it to the Commissioners of Supply. The Commissioners of Supply in Scotland were composed of the landed gentry of the country; and as they, and they alone, possessed the powers of taxation, it was but right that the Government, in providing for the levying of taxes, should have recognized their existence and authority. It was also natural that, having fixed upon the Commissioners of Supply as the au-
    740
    thorities for levying the rates, the administration of those rates should also have been intrusted to the same body. Then the two noble Dukes were excessively indignant that the lord-lieutenant should be empowered to add to this body a few of the tenant-farmers of the county. The tenant-farmers, however, were to pay half the rate, and it was their beasts that were to be slaughtered. These were strong reasons why they should have a voice in the matter. The noble Duke had asked why Government had drawn up the clause in its present form. They had done so in compliance with a memorial sent to them by the Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland, which had been agreed to at a meeting over which the noble Duke himself presided, a society which represented nearly the entire body of landed proprietors and of tenant-farmers in Scotland. The resolution agreed to at that meeting was as follows:—
    "That this Society memorialize Government to prepare a Bill, and to urge the same through Parliament immediately on its assembling, in which Bill shall he named a central Board of Commissioners, who shall authorize and require, as they shall see fit, the formation of county and town Boards throughout the kingdom consisting of Commissioners of Supply, and one or more elected tenant-farmers from each parish in counties, and of the magistrates of towns or burghs," &c.
    That memorial the noble Duke, as chairman of the meeting, sent up to Government without one word of protest; and the Lord Advocate had framed the clause in question with special reference to the suggestions it contained, supported as they were at a subsequent meeting of Scotch Members of the House of Commons, who, he believed, adopted the proposal without a single dissentient voice. He (the Duke of Argyll) confessed that [he did not attach much importance to the point at issue one way or the other, because the same persons for the most part constituted the bench of magistrates and the Commissioners of Supply; and, under these circumstances, he was not disposed to insist on the retention of the clause, although he had thought it his duty to offer a justification of the course pursued by the Government. The matter, however, was of such comparative unimportance that should the noble Duke persist in his opposition to the clause he should not trouble the House to divide upon the question.
    THE EARL OF MANSFIELDsaid, the noble Duke on the other side of the House

    741
    (the Duke of Argyll) seemed to regard the justices of the peace and the Commissioners of Supply as identical—a supposition which almost made him doubt whether the noble Duke was a Scotchman after all. The noble Duke appeared to forget that the Commissioners of Supply had no judicial functions, and that the police were not in any way subject to their jurisdiction. They had power only over the levying of taxes and of making out rates at the recommendation of others; whereas the magistrates had power over the police, and he had not heard one word of complaint as to the mode in which they had exercised that authority. Again, the magistrates met on several days in the week, whereas the Commissioners of Supply only met on one day in the week. If the clause were passed as it stood at present, great inconvenience would be caused, as it would be necessary to create a new organization for the purpose of carrying the Act into operation. He would undertake to say that if the Amendment were adopted everything in his county would be ready in four days for carrying the Act into operation; while if that power were intrusted to the Com-missioners of Supply, it would take three weeks to bring the scheme into working order.
    EARL GRANVILLEthought;, that as the Scotch Members of the other House of Parliament were in favour of the clause as it stood, nothing could more induce to delay than the adoption of the proposed Amendment.
    LORD POLWARTHwas understood to say that if the clause were permitted to remain the Act could not be brought into operation in Scotland until March.
    THE DOTE OF ARGYLLasked the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Buccleuch) how he proposed to deal with the question?
    THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHsaid, he intended to move an Amendment to strike out the clause under discussion, to amend the 8th clause, and to alter certain parts of the schedule.
    THE DUKE OF ARGYLLwished to know how the tenant-farmers whose property was to be destroyed, and who paid one-half the rate, were to be dealt with.
    THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHsaid, that the tenant-farmers of Scotland were in the same position as those of England. By his Amendment he proposed that local authorities should be enabled to form themselves into committees, and to place tenant-
    742
    farmers upon those committees. Reference had been made to a meeting of the Highland Society, over which he had the honour of being president, at which the resolution was passed that had been forwarded to Government. An amendment was moved and took every one by surprise; he should have himself spoken and voted against it if he had not been in the chair; but the resolutions were carried by a majority. The memorial had been sent up to the Government by the secretary of the society in the usual way, and all he had done was to sign it as president.
    THE DUKE OF ARGYLL,to save the time of the, House, was ready to accept the Amendment of the noble Duke.
    EARL GREYsuggested that the clause under discussion had something of the nature of a taxing clause, and therefore the Amendment might involve a question of privilege. It would alter the constitution of the body by which a local rate was to be imposed.
    THE DUKE OF MONTROSEobserved; that this clause did not impose the rate, or make any alteration in the manner of levying it.
    THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the local authority was the body to which the 18th clause confided the power of levying the rate, and to alter this clause would be a direct violation of what were considered the privileges of the other House of Parliament. He spoke under correction; but there must always be a considerable number of justices among the Commissioners of Supply.
    THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEdid not think the clause involved any breach of privilege. It simply constituted the local authority. It was not proposed to touch the 21st clause, which dealt with the mode in which the rate was to be levied.
    EARL GREYwas still of opinion that their Lordships could not alter this clause without coming into collision with the other House of Parliament and preventing the passing of the Bill. His own opinion was corroborated by a very high authority in the other House that they were not at liberty to alter the authority by which a local burden was imposed. That was the rule. If they left out the clause, they would undoubtedly interfere with the privileges of the other House. But if there were no question of privilege, he must say he should feel bound by the authorities which had been adduced in favour of the clause as it stood, supported as it was by

    743
    the unanimous opinion of the Scotch Members in the other House, by the Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland, and by the Members of Her Majesty's Government. He was not content to risk the Bill altogether on a mere matter of punctilio.
    THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that when he had consented to adopt the Amendment, he had done so upon the supposition that it would not in any way endanger the passing of the Bill. But he was at present disposed to believe that its adoption would be an interference with the privileges of the House of Commons; and he, therefore, trusted those Peers who were honestly anxious that the Bill should pass without delay would support the clause as it stood.
    EARL RUSSELLsaid, that if the House of Commons should consider that the proposed alteration involved a matter of privilege, this Bill would be laid aside; a new Bill must in such a case be brought forward, and delay would necessarily be occasioned.
    THE EARL OF HARROWBYobserved, that the objection raised on the ground of the length of time which must elapse before the meeting of the Commissioners of Supply might be obviated by inserting in the clause words empowering them to meet "forthwith."
    THE EARL OF DERBYthought that the present discussion showed the extreme inconvenience of the course pursued by the Government with regard to the Bill; for their Lordships were now called on at a short notice to discuss many points of detail, as to which there was great difference of opinion, and on which the Government did not appear themselves to have made up their minds; while their Lordships had not had the opportunity of seeing the Bill until eleven o'clock that morning. The Bill, too, was not a mere temporary measure, for some of the provisions were to last two years and a half; and therefore he thought that the infinitely better course would have been to pass Resolutions in both Houses of Parliament with respect to three or four points on which there was a general concurrence of opinion, giving the Government power to legislate by Orders in Council in reference to those points until the period when Parliament might have been able to pass a Bill on the subject. With regard to the case under discussion, he was quite ignorant of its merits; but it seemed extra-
    744
    ordinary that it should be proposed to take away authority from a body which had hitherto exercised it without complaint, and transfer it to another body of which they had no previous experience; but, for his part, he was so anxious to see the Bill pass without a moment's delay that he should be disposed to waive any objection to the provisions of the Bill—whatever he might think of some of them. With respect to the point raised in respect to the delay in the meeting of the Commissioners of Supply, he thought that that might be deemed disposed of by the 7th clause, which, as it appeared to him, gave power to summon the Commissioners of Supply at any time. As to the question of the privileges of the other House, it would certainly be unfortunate (whether they were right or wrong—whether the other House gave way or not) if that question should create any delay, and some delay must inevitably take place. He therefore submitted to his noble Friends that it would not be desirable to delay the Bill by pressing their Amendment. If, however, their Lordships consented to pass this Bill in its present defective state he hoped the Government would consent to insert a short clause to the effect that this Act may be altered or amended by any Act passed for that purpose in the present Session of Parliament.
    THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that no special Act was necessary for that purpose.
    VISCOUNT MELVILLEthought that if the House found in the Bill a clause clearly objectionable they ought to strike it out, even if it involved the necessity of having another Bill brought up from the other House.
    THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHsaid, he would yield to the objections made to his Amendment (which, however, were purely technical) rather than defeat the Bill, and would not press it.
    Clause agreed to.
    THE MARQUESS OF BATHwished to know what course the Government intended to pursue if the Cattle Plague Bill in the other House did not receive the Royal Assent this week. The clause stated that all quarter sessions should stand adjourned "to the Monday in the first week succeeding the week in which this Act passes." Would the Government prolong the Orders in Council for a short time after that day, or continue the existing orders in quarter sessions for a few days?

    745
    Moreover, they would hare new local authorities who would not know the duties devolving on them. He suggested that the 1st of March should be substituted for the Monday mentioned in the clause.
    EARL GRANVILLEbelieved, subject to what might take place in the other House, that the other Bill could receive the Royal Assent this week as well as the present measure.
    Clauses 6, 7, 8, and 9 agreed to.
    Clause 10 (Power of Entry for Inspectors, &c).
    THE EARL OF HARDWICKEcalled the attention of their Lordships to the fact that this clause gave power to any inspector to at all times enter any field, stable, cowshed, or other premises within his district where he had reasonable grounds for supposing that cattle affected by the plague were to be found. He confessed that he was more alarmed at the visit of the inspector than at anything else, because he was satisfied that the inspector was the medium of infection in many cases; but what he wished to suggest to their Lordships was that the inspector should be required to state in writing the grounds on which he proposed to enter before he required the owner or occupier to admit him under the penalty prescribed by the clause.
    EARL GRANVILLEreminded their Lordships that the local authorities would have authority to revoke the licence of the inspector on any well-furnished complaint.
    THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he had an Amendment to propose in the clause with the view of securing that notice to the owner or occupier which the noble Earl (the Earl of Hardwicke) had referred to. He thought the owner or occupier was at least entitled to a notice in writing of the grounds on which it was sought to enter his premises, before he was compelled to admit the inspector.
    EARL GREYcalled attention to the closing sentence of the clause—
    "Provided always that such inspector shall, if required, state in writing the grounds on which he has entered such premises for the purpose aforesaid."
    Clearly this was a provision for notice in writing by the inspector, and showed that the inspector was to state the grounds of his visit before he entered. He should vote against all verbal Amendments, as they would only tend to defeat the object of the Bill.
    THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEhad supposed that the noble Earl (Earl Grey) understood English better than it appeared he did. The words of the clause were, "on which he has entered such premises," and not "on which he is about to enter such premises." The proviso at the end of the clause evidently contemplated the case of a complaint from the owner after the entry, in which case the inspector was to state in writing the grounds on which he had entered.
    EARL RUSSELLasked what object would be gained by his noble Friend's Amendment if the owner was not to have the power of refusal.
    THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he did not propose to alter the clause so as to take away the compulsory power of entering.
    THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAMsaid, that his experience in his own district was unfavourable to giving the inspectors power to enter at will upon any premises, and perhaps going directly from an infected to an uninfected herd, upon the mere village gossip that this disease existed in the latter. During the last three weeks many cases of this sort had arisen. He thought some notice to an owner should be given in order to give him opportunities, if he could, of showing that there was no necessity for so dangerous a visit. He feared that the Amendment, even if adopted, would not secure that the inspector would be free from infection.
    EARL GRANVILLEobserved, that Clause 14 provided for the disinfection of the inspectors. If this was a case that allowed of delay it might be desirable to have a preliminary process, such as an application to a magistrate and the granting of an order by a justice; but this would be a source of delay, while the check suggested would be attended with no practical security.
    THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, there was a good deal of force in some of the arguments which had been put forward in the course of the discussion, and suggested that the clause should be postponed for the present. It could then be dealt with as might be necessary in the event of Amendments being introduced into any of the other clauses.
    THE EARL OF HARDWICKEsaid, it was hopeless to imagine that inspectors passing from diseased to healthy cattle could be prevented from spreading the contagion by any process of disinfectants. He doubted whether if fresh clothes were

    747
    kept at every farm which the inspector visited that would suffice, unless the inspector also bathed between each visit. He proposed that all the compulsory powers in the Bill be struck out.
    THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, the noble Earl might as well move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months. The compulsory principle was the very essence of the Bill.
    THE EARL OF DERBYremarked, that the course of treatment proposed for the inspectors reminded him of the regulations affecting the "casual" poor, who were not allowed to come into the house unless they previously submitted to the operation of the bath. The Bill would certainly lose much of its force if the compulsory powers were materially interfered with, for it was very necessary that the inspector should have the power of entering when cattle were diseased or with good reason suspected of being so. At the same time, something ought to be done to satisfy the owner of the cattle as to the grounds on which the inspector was acting, and the general nature of the information which he had received; because it was quite possible that the owner might have it in his power to explain the circumstances to the satisfaction of the inspector, without necessitating an inspection of the cattle. He did not agree with the parallel sought to be established between the inspectors and the doctors, who, it was said, might equally spread infection by their visits. The difference was, that the doctor did not come till you sent for him.
    THE MARQUESS OF BATHsaid, that if delay were to be deprecated in the case of the present Bill, to pass the one which was still to come would be ten times more important, because it was to amend the imperfections of another Bill, which by that time would already have become law.
    EARL GRANVILLEconsented to the postponement of the clause.
    Clause postponed.
    Clause 11 agreed to.
    Clause 12 (Slaughter of diseased Animals).
    THE EARL OF AIRLIEexpressed the opinion that the clause was too stringent. The slaughter of diseased animals was made imperative in all cases, without exception of any kind. In the county of Forfar, with which he was connected, 50 per cent of the animals attacked recovered.
    748
    Many would be convalescent when the Act came in force, and the local authorities would have no option but to destroy them, while it was acknowledged on all hands that a recovered cow was the very animal upon which you could best depend upon for the restitution of your stock. A letter from Forfar informed him that the percentage of recoveries there was increasing. Therefore, with a view to correct the evil he had indicated, he proposed to add a proviso at the end of the clause.
    Moved to insert the following words:—
    ("Provided, that when an Inspector shall give a Certificate in Writing, countersigned by a Justice of the Peace, that any Cattle within his District are recovering from the Cattle Plague, the Local Authority shall not he required to cause such Cattle to be slaughtered, but the said Local Authority, if they shall think fit, may order such Cattle to be slaughtered in the Manner and subject to the Provisions contained in this Act.")—(The Earl of Airlie.)
    THE EARL OF WINCHILSEAthought there would be great difficulty in fixing a price upon the animal slaughtered. How could anyone tell what it was worth immediately before it was slaughtered? It would be more proper, in his opinion, to price the animal in accordance with its value when the inspector came to it.
    EARL GRANVILLE: I would say, with regard to the Amendment of the noble Earl behind me (the Earl of Airlie), that in my opinion it is worthy of your Lordships' consideration. The Amendments proposed before this are really not of sufficient importance as to entitle them to comparison with the question of time. But this is not only a question of importance, it is also a question of great difficulty. I entirely agree with the noble Earl that the clause as it stands is calculated to deal hardly in individual cases. It would deal so with the man who had nursed a cow through the disease up to the present time and brought her into a convalescent state, and consequently increased her value. For the same reason the destruction of that animal would be a national disadvantage, because the cow would surely do good service in the future. But we should remember that the object of the Bill is to employ very stringent measures to put an end to a very great evil. Probably these measures will cause a rise in the price of meat, and probably they will interfere with the course of trade; but it is thought in the wisdom of Parliament to be worth while to make the experiment of using these very stringent measures

    749
    in order to eradicate this great evil, if possible. We propose, therefore, to adopt the principles of isolation and slaughter. In my opinion, we should adopt those principles thoroughly; for if we commence making exceptions we shall make loopholes for the disease to escape. The convalescent cow, though likely to recover, contains as much contagious matter about it as one actually suffering from the disease; and if you get excuses for preserving it the disease must spread. Then, again, it is very difficult to distinguish between the animal likely to recover and that which is past cure. I doubt, however, whether an animal which it is thought will recover from the pest would fall under the description of "a beast affected by the plague." Although it is with great reluctance that I do so, I certainly think it my duty to oppose the Amendment introduced by the noble Earl. And as it is proposed that the Bill shall only be in force during a short period, I think it would be especially unwise to make exceptions to its provisions which would detract from its efficacy.
    THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEstill desired to see some mitigation of the hardship which the Bill would inflict upon the farmer. He had been assured that 300 convalescent animals were at present in Forfar; and he desired to see some means placed at the disposal of the local authorities for saving such animals as they thought fit by strict isolation or some such means. He entreated their Lordships to give the local authorities some discretionary power at least for this purpose, and not compel them to destroy what might afterwards turn out to be useful animals.
    THE EARL OF LICHFIELDwas entirely opposed to the Amendment, because it was opposed to the chief principles of the Bill. If that Amendment was admitted the principles of slaughter and compensation must go. But he would suggest that the words "as soon as possible" be added after the word "slaughtered."
    LORD EGERTONalso objected to the proposed Amendment.
    LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYobjected to the clause as it at present stood. In conversation with a friend of his, a Member for Cheshire, he had been informed that the clause, if carried, would in that county, which had suffered much from the plague, be attended with great hardship. His friend had mentioned an instance in which a widow and her daughter
    750
    possessed ten cows, which before the appearance of the disease were worth about £15 each. By great care they managed to save two of the animals, all being attacked, and the remainder dying from the disease; but the value of animals which had recovered from the plague had so increased that she sold those remaining two for £100. Now, if this clause had been in operation at the time, both of these animals would have been ordered to be killed, and the poor woman would have been ruined. He therefore regarded the clause as too stringent.
    THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHsaid, he did not believe that the disease could be got rid of by a system of wholesale slaughter, because where the disease had by that means been temporarily suppressed, it had subsequently re-appeared. He thought that the plan was likely to be as effective as if they had attempted to keep the smallpox from spreading by putting to death every man, woman, and child who should be attacked, or should have been in any house where any one had been attacked. He had learnt only that morning of an instance in which eighteen out of twenty-five animals seized with the disease in the county of Edinburgh had recovered; and yet if this clause had been in effect the whole of those eighteen must have been slaughtered. In another case three had recovered out of fourteen; and he might mention, as a singular fact, that those three had come from a farm where the cowpox had raged the previous summer, and where these animals had suffered severely from its effects. In a case of his own, twenty out of twenty-one cattle had recovered, if the inspector who examined the animals had given a correct opinion. One died, as the inspector insisted most strenuously, of cattle plague; and though others were also seized, they all recovered. He concurred in believing that some discretion ought to be given to the local authorities.
    EARL SPENCERdesired to make one or two remarks upon the principle of slaughter. It was true that cases of recovery were frequently reported, and in some instances they were said to have been as high as 90 per cent; but he thought that every one ought to be extremely careful in deciding upon individual cases—they must take the percentage of disease over the whole country. In some districts the disease had assumed a mild form; and even in districts where the in-

    751
    fection had raged very violently large percentages of recoveries had, in individual instances, been reported; but the experience of men eminent in medical as well as veterinary science had shown that in England, and throughout Europe, of the total of those attacked, but few recovered. In England, Scotland, and Wales they amounted, he believed, to 10 per cent. He did not, therefore, think it would be wise to sacrifice the salvation of the country, as regarded the cattle plague, to a delusive hope of successful treatment. Without the principle embodied in the clause under discussion, the Bill would, in his opinion, be entirely inoperative. The Amendment moved by his noble Friend would take out the whole pith and essence of the clause. They were not legislating for the particular owners of cattle, who would be placed under great disadvantage and inconvenience if cattle were slaughtered, which from the fact of their having recovered from the cattle plague were more valuable than before; but they were legislating for the general good of the public. Those cattle had the seeds of disease about them, and if allowed to remain alive would probably convey the infection to their neighbours' stock. Then, again, how were they to define what a convalescent animal was? Experience had shown that many animals after partially recovering from the disease had relapsed and died, and animals ought not to be allowed to remain alive to the probable injury of the cattle in the neighbourhood, because some local inspector or veterinary surgeon happened to possess great confidence in his own skill. Even if they thought that convalescent animals might be allowed to live, the very difficulty of defining what a convalescent animal was, should, in his opinion, induce the Government to insist upon the clause in its original form.
    VISCOUNT MELVILLEsaid, he could not concur with the principle of compulsory slaughter, although he could understand that of compulsory isolation. The cholera was shown to be atmospheric, and it had yet to be proved that the rinderpest did not partake of the same character. He thought, therefore, that the clause was an exceedingly harsh one, especially since many credible cures had already been effected.
    THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that the Amendment before their Lordships was in reality the only important one which had been moved that evening, and in the dis-
    752
    cussion which had occupied their Lordships' attention they had had a specimen of what the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) on the first night of the Session had called a "chorus" upon the conduct of the Government. The noble Earl said there was a perfect "chorus" of voices condemning the conduct of the Government with respect to the cattle plague, and the specimen they had that evening showed that any course which the Government might have adopted would have met with similar treatment. He could only hope that those to whom the harmonies of sound were agreeable were pleased with the performance. The clause under the discussion of the House was of an extremely stringent—he might say, violent character. If it were proved as a matter of certainty that the disease could not be cured, then the course recommended in the clause would be the only rational one. But he believed it to be the unquestionable fact that in some districts, and in Forfarshire and Renfrewshire especially, a very considerable proportion of the cattle attacked by the disease were saved; and, such being the case, he could not bring his mind to vote in favour of a clause under which an animal on the point of convalescence might be slaughtered by the order of an inspector. It might be said that, after all, this was a Bill which would only remain in force for five weeks; but in that time the whole of the cattle in the kingdom might be slaughtered; and, therefore, he thought that a certain amount of discretion should be left to the local authorities, as it was unreasonable that animals should be killed when convalescent. He had seen a letter in one of the newspapers that morning from a very eminent man in which it was pointed out that with regard to epidemics of this kind, whether attacking man or beast, it was almost a general law that after a certain time, and after they have run a certain course, their violence and their virulence diminished, and they became more amenable to curative measures. At the present moment, in some parts of the country, the disease appeared to him to be entering into this mitigated stage, and in many counties was neither so prevalent nor so virulent as it had been. Yet by this clause it was enacted that all animals, however mildly attacked, and however great might be their chance of recovering, were to be at once killed. He agreed with the noble Lord (Lord Stanley of Alderley) that the animals which recovered were more valuable than

    753
    they were before they had had the disease, and, therefore, the wrong would be greater to kill those which were likely to be cured. He could only repeat the remark he had made on the first night of the Session, that some discretion should be given to the local authorities in the matter.
    THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he was afraid the noble Duke's fine oar for harmony must be somewhat jarred upon on the present occasion, as the course of proceeding he had adopted was almost unprecedented with regard to a Government measure. The House was called upon at twelve hours' notice to consider the provisions of a Bill upon which the Government implored them to abstain from introducing any Amendments whatever, as they were desirous of passing it without discussion and without delay; and then one if not two Members of the Cabinet avowed their intention of opposing this most important clause. He had come down to that House willing and anxious to support Her Majesty's Government in carrying the Bill as it was passed by the House of Commons; but he could not sanction such a material alteration in the principle of the Bill as it was now proposed to effect.
    THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, after the remarks that had fallen from the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Argyll), he must ask whether this Bill was brought forward upon the authority of Her Majesty's Government or not?
    EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he had to state, in reply to the noble Earl who had acted so efficiently as the whipper-in of the Cabinet, that this Bill was brought in under the authority of the Government; but, as there was a general understanding that all party feeling was to be avoided in discussing the question, he could not prevent the noble Lords behind him from differing in their opinions any more than the noble Earl had been able to enforce a unanimous opinion among the noble Lords opposite.
    THE EARL OF DERBYreminded the noble Earl that there was a great difference between views which might be ex-pressed by independent Members, in whose hands the Bill had only just been placed, and those of Members of the Cabinet, who had had ample time to consider the question in all its bearings.
    On Question? their Lordships divided:—Contents 16; Not-Contents 52: Majority 36.
    Resolved in the Negative.
    Clause agreed to.

    CONTENTS.

    Airlie, E. [Teller.]

    Chaworth, L. (E, Meath.)

    Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queens-berry.)

    De Tabley, L.

    Hatherton, L.

    Kenyon, L.

    Ellenborough, E.

    Lyveden, L.

    Leven and Melville, E.

    Panmure, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

    Selkirk, E.

    Verulam, E.

    Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

    Melville, V. [Teller.]

    Walsingham, L.

    Torrington, V.

    NOT-CONTENTS.

    Cranworth, L. (L. Chancellor.)

    Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

    Buckingham and Chandos, D.

    Hawarden, V.

    Devonshire, D.

    Abinger, L.

    Grafton, D.

    Bateman, L.

    Richmond, D.

    Belper, L.

    Somerset, D.

    Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

    Exeter, M.

    Chelmsford, L.

    Salisbury, M,

    Clandeboye, L. (L. Dufferin and Claneboye.)

    Albemarle, E.

    Cadogan, E.

    Colville of Culross, L.

    Carnarvon, E.

    Congleton, L.

    Cathcart, E.

    Egerton, L.

    Clarendon, E,

    Feversham, L.

    Cowper, E.

    Foley, L. [Teller.]

    Dartmouth, E.

    Houghton, L.

    De Grey, E.

    Monson, L.

    Derby, E.

    Northbrook, L.

    Devon, E.

    Polwarth, L.

    Ducie, E.

    Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough. [Teller.]

    Granville, E,

    Hardwicke, E,

    Redesdale, L.

    Harrowby, E.

    Seymour, L. (E. St. Maur.)

    Lichfield, E.

    Malmesbury, E,

    Sondes, L.

    Mansfield, E.

    Southampton, L.

    Spencer, E.

    Truro, L.

    Stanhope, E.

    Vivian, L.

    Strange, E. (D. Athol.)

    Clause 13 (Burial of diseased Animals).
    THE MARQUESS OF BATHproposed an Amendment prohibiting cattle slaughtered under the Act from being buried within the limits of large towns. He understood that the soil of Liverpool was so rocky that there would be great difficulty in burying the slaughtered animals within the town, and in any case such a practice would be detrimental to the health of the inhabitants.
    After short discussion,
    Clause agreed to,
    Clause 14 (Purification of sheds, &c, of diseased Animals),
    THE MARQUESS OF BATHinquired, whether it was intended by Government to issue any code of regulations by which the local authorities throughout the country might be guided as to the work of disinfection?
    EARL GRANVILLEhad no doubt the local authorities would adopt the proper regulations for carrying out the Act.
    THE MARQUESS OF BATHthought the regulations to be adopted would require to be framed with scientific knowledge.
    EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that some valuable suggestions on this subject were embodied in a paper appended to the first Report of the Royal Commission on the cattle plague.
    EARL SPENCERconsidered it desirable that regulations should be framed for the local authorities, in order to enable them to carry out the system of disinfection on a uniform system.
    EARL GRANVILLEwould refer the noble Earl to the Report which had been drawn up on that subject by Dr. Lyon Playfair.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 15 (Slaughter of cattle herded with diseased Animals).
    LORD WALSINGHAMexpressed his belief that this provision was entirely unnecessary, and would tend to destroy those herds which had given a reputation to the cattle of this country throughout the world. A case had come under his knowledge of an inspector, educated at the London Veterinary College, being called in by a farmer, and pronouncing that an animal had got the plague; but a different view prevailed with the farmers, the animal was put under proper treatment, and recovered, and no other animal had the disease. Under this Bill the whole herd might have been destroyed by the order of the inspector. He moved the omission of the clause.
    LORD FEVERSHAMsupported the Amendment.
    LORD HOUGHTON,while admitting that this was a revolutionary measure, could not draw a distinction between that clause and the one preceding it. Both were enactments oppressive to individuals, and they would only be justified by a great emergency such as that which at present existed. There was no fear of the local authorities abusing the power given to them under this clause, for they would not be desirous of increasing the rate.
    THE EARL OF HARDWICKEthought it very hard upon the farmer that when healthy fat cattle were slaughtered by the order of an inspector, he should not be allowed to send them to market instead of receiving only a part of their value.
    THE EARL OF DERBYreminded his noble Friend that the slaughter was not to be at the discretion of the inspector, but of the local authorities, and as they would have to bear their share of the loss, they would not unnecessarily increase the amount. There was a provision made which would meet the case to which his noble Friend referred, for it gave the farmer the option of taking three-fourths of the value, or taking the responsibility of sending the carcase up to the butcher. If they were to deal with the question by stringent regulations, they must endeavour to make the regulations as stringent as possible.
    Amendment withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 16 agreed to.
    Clause 17 (Regulations as to movement of Cattle).
    LORD WALSINGHAMdid not see why the prohibition of the carriage of cattle by railway should not also apply to sheep. Whether sheep took the disease or not was a moot question, but there was no doubt it might be conveyed in their wool.
    Clause 18.
    In reply to The Earl of DALHOUSLE,
    EARL GRANVILLEstated that the payment of the inspectors would fall on the local rates.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clauses 19 and 20 agreed to.
    Clause 21 (Mode of levying and recovering Assessments of Cattle).
    THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHpresented two petitions from towns in Scotland, stating that the words "lands and heritages" would include heritages in town as well as in country, and praying for an Amendment in favour of towns. His own opinion being that the calamity was a national one, he thought the towns as well as the counties should contribute to the rate to be levied under the Bill.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clauses 22 to 33 agreed to.
    Clause 34, Clause D (Continuance of Act).
    THE EARL OF CARNARVONsuggested that the wording as well as the working of the clause would be improved by the substitution for the words "it shall be lawful for Her Majesty in Council" of the words "it shall be lawful for any two or more of the lords of the Privy Council." There might be difficulty in procuring the immediate attendance of more than two or three Members of the Privy Council at any particular time, and the above words were in conformity with the Act of 1848.
    EARL GRANVILLEagreed with the noble Earl that the alteration would be very desirable; but as the Bill—with the generous co-operation of noble Lords on the opposite side of the House—had passed through so far without Amendments it would not be worth while, he thought, for the sake of a verbal improvement, merely to delay the final adoption of the measure.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    On Question that the Schedule be agreed to,
    THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHobjected to the constitution into separate local authorities in Scotland of burghs which return or contribute to return a Member to Parliament. In the county of Ayr there were five such burghs, in Dumfries five, and in Elgin six. Of some of these places the population was exceedingly small; in one case there were only 568 persons in all, of whom but 23 were voters.
    EARL GRANVILLEregretted that the noble Duke who was so well acquainted with the local matters referred to was not at the moment in his place. The point, however, he thought was a small one, remembering that the House had not rejected or altered any of the provisions of the Bill.
    THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHdiffered from the noble Earl. He thought the point one of considerable importance.
    THE EARL OF LICHFIELDcalled attention to a suggestion put forward, among others, by the local authorities of Liverpool, to the effect that permission should be given, where desirable, to dispose of the carcases of diseased animals by other modes than that of burial.
    EARL GRANVILLEthought that during the four or five weeks the Bill would be in operation, no real inconvenience could result from enforcing the process of burial, whereas experiments on the subject might be attended with serious consequences.
    THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, the clause relating to burial had been adopted, and
    758
    the discussion accordingly was somewhat irregular. At the same time it might be worth mentioning, with a view to future legislation on the subject, that there were many districts in England, lying upon sandstone rook or gravelly soil, where it would be simply impossible to bury the animals as required by the Act "with not less than 6 feet of earth."
    Schedule agreed to.
    Clause 10 (Power of Entry for Inspectors, &c).
    THE EARL OF LICHFIELDsaid, he felt bound to press the following Amend- ment:—
    "Provided always, that such inspector shall, if required, before entering state in writing the grounds on which he proposes to enter the said premises."
    After ("required") moved to insert ("before entering.")—(The Earl of Lichfield.)
    On Question? their Lordships divided:—Contents 21; Not-Contents 22: Majority 1:—Resolved in the Negative.
    Clause agreed to.
    Bill reported, without Amendment, and read 3a and passed.

    CONTENTS.

    Buckingham and Chan-dos, D.

    Strange, E. (D. Athol.)

    Hawarden.

    Grafton, D.

    Melville, V,

    Airlie, E,

    Abinger L.

    Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

    Bateman, L. [Teller.]

    Colville of Culross, L.

    Egerton, L,

    Hardwicke, E.

    Panmure, L, (E. Dalhousie.)

    Leven and Melville, E.

    Lichfield, E. [Teller.]

    Polwarth, L.

    Mansfield, E.

    Southampton, L,

    Minto, E.

    Walsingham, L,

    Selkirk, E,

    NOT-CONTENTS.

    Cranworth, L. (L. Chancellor.)

    Spencer, E.

    Belper, L.

    Richmond, D.

    Clandeboye, L. (L. Dufferin and Claneboye.)

    Somerset, D.

    Bath, M.

    Congleton, L.

    Salisbury, M,

    Foley, L. [Teller.]

    Monson, L.

    Albermavle, E. [Teller]

    Overstone, L.

    Carnarvon, E.

    Redesdale, L.

    Cathcart, E.

    Stanley of Alderley, L.

    Clarendon, E.

    Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll)

    De Grey, E.

    Granville, E.

    Vivian, L.

    TELEGRAPH ACT AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
    Order of the Day for the Second Reading and for Standing Orders Nos. 37 and 38 to be considered in order to their being dispensed with, and the Lords Summoned, read: Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a; agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly; Standing Orders Nos. 37 and 38 considered, and dispensed with; Committee negatived; Bill read 3a; Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
    LAW OF EVIDENCE AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
    A Bill further to amend the Law of Evidence: And also,

    DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL [H.L.]
    A Bill further to amend the Procedure and Powers of the Court for Divorce and Matrimonial Causes: Were presented by The LORD CHANCELLOR; read 1a. (Nos. 16 and 17.)
    House adjourned at Nine o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.