Lords Sitting of 19 March 1877

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Justices Clerks *(28); Inns of Court (30); General School of Law * (31).
Committee—Report—Exoneration of Charges * (16-29); Contingent Remainders (17–29) Beer Licences (Ireland) * (23).
Third Reading—Irish Peerage (15), and passed.

PARLIAMENT—THE EASTER RECESS.

  QUESTION.
  EARL GRANVILLEasked the Lord President, What arrangements the Government intend to propose with respect to the Easter Recess?
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONreplied that they proposed to ask the House to adjourn for the Easter Recess on Friday next, unless there should be any necessity for their Lordships to meet on a subsequent day to pass any Bill which might come up from the other House; and they proposed that, in accordance with what had been done for the last two years, their Lordships should re-assemble on Thursday, the 12th of April.

THE EASTERN QUESTION—THE NEGOTIATIONS.—QUESTIONS.
EARL GRANVILLEasked the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he is in a position to give the House any further information regarding the negotiations on the Eastern Question?
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I think it best, in answer to the noble Earl, to state exactly the course which the present negotiations have taken so far as they have hitherto gone. On Sunday, the 11th instant, after some previous communications had taken place on the subject, I received from the Russian Ambassador a draft Protocol proposed by the Russian Government, and intended to be signed by the Representatives of all the Powers, as embodying their views of the situation in the East. That draft Protocol was considered by the Cabinet, and certain modifications were proposed by us. Some negotiations ensued between Count Schouvaloff and myself; and in the end a modified Protocol was agreed on between us—agreed on to this extent, that we were prepared to adopt it, and he accepted it ad referendum. Count Schouvaloff accordingly referred that modified Protocol to his own Court; and if my noble Friend had put his Question three hours ago my answer would have stopped here; but shortly

91
before I came down to the House, I received a visit from Count Schouvaloff, and he informed me of a proposal of some alterations in the Protocol agreed upon between us which his Government considers desirable. Those proposed alterations I have not yet had time to consider. As I have only received them within the last few hours, they have not yet been seen by my Colleagues, and, therefore, I am not in a position to give any further information with regard to them.
LORD CAMPBELLasked the noble Earl whether it was correct that Sir Henry Elliot was about to return immediately to Constantinople, or was to enjoy that period of rest to which his multifarious and anxious labours so well entitled him?
THE EARL OF DERBY: I am glad my noble Friend has put the Question to me. In answer to it I beg to say that it was my wish and intention that Sir Henry Elliot should, if possible, return without delay to Constantinople, where his experience and judgment would render him eminently useful. I had a communication on the subject with Sir Henry Elliot, and, with that public spirit which he has always manifested, he expressed himself ready to return at once if the public service required that he should do so; but he did not conceal from me that he had come home in much need of rest after his arduous and anxious labours during the last 12 months, and he believed that if he returned to Constantinople without a further interval of repose, the probable result would be that in a very short time he would become again unfit for work and be compelled to ask for further leave. Under these circumstances I felt that, even putting personal considerations out of the way—and no man is more entitled to personal consideration than Sir Henry Elliot—it would not be for the benefit of the public service to press for his immediate return to the Embassy. I am, therefore, making other temporary arrangements for carrying on the work at Constantinople, and Sir Henry Elliot will remain some time longer in England, retaining his present position, but being here on leave.
EARL. GRANVILLE: I will put another Question to the noble Earl, leaving him to answer it only if he thinks fit—What are those other temporary arrangements?
THE EARL OF DERBY: As they are not yet made, I am unable to state them.

IRISH PEERAGE BILL.—(No. 15.)
(The Lord Inchiquin.)
IRISH PEERAGE BILL.—(No. 15.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
  Moved,"That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Inchiquin.)
  LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, before the Bill passed, he was anxious to call the attention of the House to its position. This was the fourth year they had attempted in one way or another to deal with the question, and therefore they had not proceeded without very considerable deliberation. Four years ago a Select Committee of that House was appointed on the Motion of his noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Rose-beryl to inquire into the whole question; and that Committee was unanimous on the single question of closing—if he might so call it—the Irish Peerage, though there was a difference of opinion upon other points. The next year, 1875, an Address was moved to the Crown by a distinguished Member of the House, Earl Stanhope — which, after being altered to the form suggested by the Government, was unanimously agreed to. To that Address an Answer was brought from the Crown to the effect that Her Majesty desired that Her rights under the Act of Union—the right of creating Irish Peers—should not stand in the way of any consideration of the subject by Parliament. Last year his noble Friend (Lord Inchiquin) brought in a Bill dealing with the subject; and their Lordships would no doubt remember the fate of that measure. That Bill contained other matters easily separable from the single question of closing the Irish Peerage, which were not included in the Bill now before them—for it proposed to deal with the question of representation, on which point a considerable discussion arose. He remembered that the noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack, whilst severely criticizing the other portions of the measure of last year, expressed the opinion that the arguments in favour of closing the Irish Peerage were unanswerable

  93
  and that Her Majesty's Government had no desire or opinion contrary to it. The essential part of the measure—that which was contained in the present Bill—received the unqualified approval and commendation of the noble and learned Lord. The Bill left their Lordship's House in May; but its fate in the other House was very different. It was introduced by a distinguished Member of the Irish Bar, who had since become a Member of the Government as Attorney General for Ireland; but, in spite of the good hands which it was in, Mr. Gibson was unable to obtain time for a full discussion; and on the 12th of August, when the Bill was in Committee, the House was counted out, and the measure came to an end. His anxiety was that the present Bill should not share the same fate. He believed there was a better prospect for the measure this year, not only because it left that House earlier in the Session, but much more on account of its simplicity, and because it did not deal with the much-disputed question of the reform of the Irish Peerage. He could not, however, help feeling that the Bill still ran considerable risk, and all the more if it left their Lordships' House without a single word said by the Government—as they said in Ireland, "good, bad, or indifferent." He thought the House would admit that a constitutional question of this kind ought not to be left in this way, and he thought the Government ought to do one thing or the other. The Government were perfectly entitled to oppose it; but not only had they not done so, but, on the contrary, had assented to it. Under these circumstances, it seemed to him that the Government had a duty to perform with respect to the measure; and if they did not take it into their own hands—which he very much desired to see them do—he thought the House might expect them to assume a certain amount of responsibility for it in the other House of Parliament.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he had listened with some attention to the noble Lord's speech, because he was not quite certain that he had caught the purport of it. The noble Lord, as he proceeded, seemed rather to find fault with the Government for not having opposed the Bill on the second reading. That was a course which the Government would, no doubt,
  94
  have adopted had they thought the Bill was one which ought not to pass; but that was not their opinion, and on the noble Lord's own showing, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack spoke in favour of the principle of the Bill last year. The remarks made by his noble and learned Friend on that occasion showed what were the views of Her Majesty's Government; but as to the duty of the Government with regard to the position which they should assume in the other House as to taking charge of the Bill, the, noble Lord would forgive him for saying that the Government must be the best judges of that. He could give no assurance as to the Government undertaking any responsibility in, the matter.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he did not think that the explanation of the noble Duke was satisfactory, because it left the House in ignorance of what course the Government proposed to take.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, that the House had heard when the Bill was on for second reading what was the opinion of the Government with respect to it; but, having regard to the state of Business in the other House he could not, on the part of the Government, enter into any undertaking with respect to this Bill.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, that what the Government had given the Bill was what a noble Earl opposite, the late Privy Seal, had described as "negative support" — a sort of support that must be very discouraging to the noble Lord who had charge of the Bill in that House. The Bill was overhung by the shadow of the cumulative vote 'proposed in the former measure; but he hoped the Government would disregard that shadow and assist to carry the Bill through the other House.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that up to this the Government nights in the other House had been fully taken up with Government measures, and there were other Government measures which Ministers were awaiting an opportunity to introduce. In these circumstances, to ask Her Majesty's Government to take upon themselves the conduct of a Bill which they had not introduced would be to ask them to give up to it Government nights which were already appropriated to other measures.

  95
  He did not see how they could give the Bill any peculiar facilities without doing that; and at this period of the Session and in the present state of Business they were not prepared to promise to do it.
  THE EARL OF LIMERICKconsidered that when a practically unanimous assent had been expressed on the principle of the Bill for four years running the measure ought to receive an amount of support from the Government in "another place." Although the Bill itself was a small one, it involved a matter of considerable constitutional importance, and it did not seem right to him that a question of this importance should be kept pending year after year.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALEalso thought it of great importance that the Bill should pass, but the chances of its passage must depend on its Friends. Let them refrain from mixing up with the question in the Bill other questions which would be sure to lead to difference of opinion and lengthened debates.
  LORD INCHIQUINhoped that the view taken by the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees would be followed in "another place"; but there was no certainty, and it was more than probable that other alterations would be proposed. All who had interested themselves in the Bill in their Lordships' House were very anxious that it should pass, but they could not control their Friends in the other House. He had hoped to get an assurance from Her Majesty's Government that they would give the Bill all the assistance in their power.
  LORD SELBORNEagreed with his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, that the Government must first consider the measures which they themselves had in hand; but when the Government permitted a measure of such constitutional importance as one affecting the Irish Peerage to pass in one House unanimously, they ought scarcely to allow that measure to take its chance in the category of Bills promoted by private Members.
  LORD DUNSANYcould conceive some advantages in not making the Bill a Government measure, but saw no reason why the Government should not wish" God speed" to the Bill before it left their Lordships' House.
  LORD DENMANsaid, he was opposed to the principle of the Bill alto-
  96
  gether, and thought that a measure of so much importance to the Empire ought not to pass until the Irish Peers and the country had pronounced some opinion on it.
  THE EARL OF COURTOWNbelieved that the Irish Peers in their Lordships' House were unanimous, with, perhaps, one exception, in favour of the Bill, and were most anxious that it should pass.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 3a accordingly, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

CATTLE PLAGUE — CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACT, 1869.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL FORTESCUErose to ask the Lord President of the Council whether the Cattle Plague had spread any further; and to call attention to the Resolution of the Royal Agricultural Society against the importation of any live stock from abroad. A very critical state of things, he observed, was created by the fact of cattle plague having now existed in the country for more than a month. He admitted that the measures taken by the Lord President since the appearance of the cattle plague had been characterized by vigour and excellent judgment, with a readiness to take upon himself the responsibility of any attempt to stamp out the disease before it could spread. But he found, on the high authority of Mr. Fleming, that the noble Duke was misinformed in stating, as he had done on a former occasion, that it never had appeared in Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Spain, or Portugal. In the last century its ravages had been terrible in the four first-named countries; and in Portugal, also, it had done extensive damage. In 1809 cattle, sheep, and meat were in the list of imported articles which were prohibited; and again by an Act passed in 1825 (6 Geo. IV., c. 107) they were prohibited, excepting 600 head which were allowed to come to this country from the Isle of Man. On a former occasion the noble Duke had expressed an opinion that to stop the importation of live cattle would be an interference with vested interests. Now, as to vested interests which might have grown up in regard to the non-slaughtering of beasts imported from

  97
  abroad, they were of recent origin, and therefore entitled to less respect than if they had been long in existence and a large capital invested in the trade. There had been a discussion at the Council Board of the Royal Agricultural Society, and a resolution was proposed that animals should be slaughtered at the ports of debarkation; but an Amendment was carried that as the precautions theretofore adopted for the prevention of rinderpest into this country had not been successful, nothing short of total prevention of all importation of live cattle from European ports would meet the exigencies of the case. The same views had been expressed in Leicestershire and at other places where meetings had been held. This, at any rate, showed that agriculturalists entertained a feeling of alarm which could not be called unreasonable looking at the large amount of loss which they sustained on the last occasion of the rinderpest visiting this country. He knew that the noble Duke would view this Resolution as a reactionary measure, and opposed to the principles of free trade; but they protested not against the importation of all stock, but only against the importation of fat stock—a kind of stock which was unable to endure a sea voyage and a long quarantine without great loss to the importer, through deterioration; so much so, indeed, as to prevent importation at a profit. In demanding the exclusion of fat stock he knew there were more advantages in bringing it over alive than dead; but he was not seeking protection from competition, but protection from the introduction and spread of cattle disease. He contended that if the Government established a quarantine of sufficient duration, so as to insure immunity against the spread of any contagion by animals having disease latent in them, the evil would cure itself. Lean stock would very easily submit to the detention, but fat stock would suffer deterioration and consequently expense to the owner. Moreover, it was to be remembered that a large amount of suffering was endured by these animals during their transit, and that many died before leaving the port of debarkation. He hoped that the noble Duke would be able to give their Lordships a favourable account of the present state of the country in regard to cattle plague.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he could assure the noble Earl and their Lordships that the Government were fully alive to the importance of this subject. The magnitude of the interests involved in the question—to the producers on the one hand, and to the consumers on the other—it was not possible to over estimate. He might add that, being largely engaged in agricultural pursuits both in the North of Scotland and the South of England, he had himself a considerable personal interest in the matter. He could therefore assure the noble Earl that this subject was one which had occupied the attention of the Government before the noble Earl brought it before their Lordships on a former occasion, and that it had not ceased to occupy their earnest attention since the first outbreak occurred. The noble Earl's Question might be divided into two parts—First, whether the cattle disease had spread any further than it had reached when the last statement was made in this House; and, secondly, whether the importation of live stock from abroad ought not to be prohibited. It being convenient to divide the Question into those two heads, he (the Duke of Richmond) would address himself to each—because the one contained a proposition quite distinct from the other. First, in regard to the cattle plague and its present complexion. Their Lordships would remember that the disease broke out at Deptford in a cargo of cattle brought from Hamburgh on January 15. It made its appearance at Limehouse shortly after that date; and had broken out in that immediate neighbourhood in one place or another on several occasions; he included Stratford as part of that limited area in the metropolis. All these outbreaks occurred before the 12th of March. Since that date no further report had been received from that area. At Hull the disease made its appearance on the 15th of February; about that time there were three or four outbreaks, but none had been reported to the Department since the 6th March. The only other outbreak had taken place in a mysterious way at a place in Lincolnshire, some nine miles from Hull. It made its appearance there on the 9th March, on a farm at Ulceby. All the animals on that farm were immediately destroyed, and the farm had been com-

  99
  pletely isolated—nothing was allowed to go upon it. The house was not occupied by the gentleman who farmed the lands, as he had a large business elsewhere; but a bailiff and one or two other persons were employed there. However, it had been isolated by not allowing any animals to go upon it, and he hoped that they would not hear of any further outbreaks in that locality or anywhere else. As he had stated, they had had no outbreak in London since the 12th of March, nor at Hull since the 6th. With regard to the measures which had been adopted to meet any outbreak, he might state again that Orders in Council were issued on the 16th and 18th January placing Germany, Belgium, and France in a Schedule, the effect of which was that sheep and goats from those countries must be slaughtered at the port of debarkation, and on the 27th January an Order was passed prohibiting the importation of cattle from Germany or Belgium, and from those countries since that date neither live animals nor meat in carcase could be brought over. These measures, it was to be observed, were adopted before the cattle plague had spread over the country. When the disease broke out at Limehouse the holding of fairs and markets in the district was prohibited; and it was ordered that beasts coming from the Netherlands must be slaughtered at the port of debarkation. An Order in Council was also issued on the 13th February authorizing all local authorities to stop fairs and markets in their respective districts and to prohibit the movement of cattle if they should see fit to do so, and several of those bodies had availed themselves of those powers. On two occasions he had, to save time, taken upon himself to advise that an Order in Council should be issued to stop fairs and markets in the East Riding of Yorkshire and in Lincolnshire. This was previous to the outbreak of the disease in that county, and, therefore, when the outbreak did occur, no fairs or markets could be held and, as elsewhere, the authorities had power to prohibit the movement of cattle. Thus far, then, he thought it not unfair to assume that the stringent measures which had been adopted to stop the spread of this most terrible and insidious disease had been successful. He had so far given the
  100
  noble Earl all the information in his power as to the present state of the cattle plague in this country. He had now to offer to the noble Earl an apology for having on the previous occasion challenged certain statements he then made without being perfectly accurate himself. But the fact was he had at the moment lost sight of something which had been done by Order in Council, and in reference to the existence of cattle plague in Sweden and Norway he felt now that he was wrong in saying it was not known there; but when he said that he was not alluding to outbreaks in those and adjoining countries more than 100 years ago—he was speaking as to what had happened within the present century—and he was not sure, nor did he think the noble Earl could himself say, that the cattle disease which broke out in parts of Europe at that period was the same as that with which we had now to deal. No doubt the disease of that time made much havoc amongst the herds, but not such as the cattle plague had done. He now came to that part of the noble Earl's Question that related to the Resolution of the Royal Agricultural Society of the 7th March, and the amendments moved by Mr. Jacob Wilson, in favour of stopping the importation of foreign cattle altogether. He (the Duke of Richmond) supposed that in referring to that Resolution, his noble Friend intended not so much to express approval or disapproval of it, as to call attention to the subject generally. If that recommendation were carried into effect, the consequence would be the withdrawal from the supply of food for the people of this country of between 200,000 and 300,000 of cattle, 1,000,000 sheep, and 50,000 swine—in all, about 1,500,600 of animals a-year. Before doing that it must be a matter for serious consideration. Perhaps the noble Earl did not go the length of such a Resolution; but he wished to prevent the importation of all fat stock except in carcase; and yet he would allow the introduction of, and trade in, store cattle after they had undergone a quarantine of sufficient duration and strictness to insure other cattle immunity from the disease. As he had just stated, it was a matter for deep consideration whether there should be a total withdrawal of 1,500,000 animals from the supply to

  101
  this country; and a question would then arise whether that withdrawal would be compensated by the importation of dead meat from abroad. If it could be proved that that 1,500,000 which came in alive for the purposes of food would be represented by a like quantity of dead meat in carcase, there might be something said for the proposition; but his noble Friend would agree that there was a great difference between the trade in live animals and the trade in carcases. If they brought over to this country a quantity of fat stock, and the market was not good when the animals came in, they could be kept over for the next; but when meat was brought over in carcase it was liable to all the changes of weather, and it must be sold at some price or another within a certain time; if not it would become unfit for human food, and would be condemned. Therefore it was a consideration whether persons carrying on a business in live animals would be able and willing to send over meat in the carcase. These were matters which must enter into the consideration of those persons who had to deal with the food required for the daily consumption of the people. He would pass by—though it was a point that would have to be taken into account—the question of the great amount of food that was provided for the poorer class in towns from the offal of the animals which came over alive, and which would not be available if the meat was imported in carcase. He could give an illustration of the effect of putting a check on the importation of animals into this country. During the six years ending 1869 the country imported from France 112,618 cattle; but in 1870 France was placed in the scheduled countries—which meant that all animals coming from France had to be slaughtered at the port of debarkation, or undergo a quarantine; and those restrictions were so stringent that in the seven years following 1869 the number imported was only 24,095—showing a very great distinction between the two periods. All that showed how cautious they ought to be in carrying out the Resolution to which the noble Earl had referred. He did not admit that he was so great a convert as the noble Earl seemed to intimate. The noble Earl said that the Resolution ought to be enforced for the purpose of preventing the
  102
  introduction of cattle disease; but he seemed to have forgotten that foot-and-mouth disease and pleuro-pneumonia were cattle diseases, and were known in this country before foreign animals were permitted to come in. Therefore foot-and-mouth disease and pleuro-pneumonia were not dependent on the introduction of foreign stock. Cattle plague was another matter; but he understood the noble Earl's argument to apply to all— diseases.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, that was not so.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: Was he then to understand the noble Earl to say that he would only seek to prevent the introduction of fat stock into the country to keep out the cattle plague, or would he equally exclude foot-and-mouth disease and pleuro-pneumonia? He apprehended that the Resolution was intended to exclude those two other other diseases as well; but they both existed in this country before foreign animals were admitted. He hoped that he had shown that as regarded all fat stock it would be necessary to proceed with the greatest possible caution before issuing an order for the purpose of keeping them out of this country. But the noble Earl said he would allow store stock to come in. He wanted to know why they were to make that distinction? If fat stock should not come in because of the fear of introducing cattle plague, why should store stock come in?—it would equally introduce the disease. If the argument was good in the one case it was equally good in the other. Once they granted that for the purpose of excluding cattle plague they ought to keep out fat stock, it was impossible to avoid the logical conclusion that they must also keep out store stock. A lean animal would just as easily introduce cattle plague as a fat animal would do. The noble Earl said it would be very easy to meet the difficulty by having quarantine in all cases, and to make it of sufficient strictness to secure immunity. He had often heard it said that we ought to have quarantine, but he had never met with any person who could state how it could be carried out. It sounded very well to the ear, but it would be one of the most difficult things in the world to carry into operation.

  103
  What was meant by a quarantine of sufficient time to ensure immunity from the spread of disease? A cargo of animals arrived at a port, and were placed in quarantine — disease broke out among them. If it were foot-and-mouth disease they might be cured; but if rinderpest they would be destroyed. Before the cattle were quite well, or the place disinfected, another lot of cattle arrived, quite free from the disease; that lot would have to be put into quarantine in the same place, and might catch the disease. It would be very hard on the owner of those cattle to put them in a place where they were sure to catch the disease, and keep them there until they were quite well, because they were not going to kill them, as they were store cattle. The result would therefore be that they would bring animals to a place which must become a hotbed of disease; and if they were there, and if they took the disease, and it was working among them, they would have to be kept for the period which might be fixed upon, and then they might go out to the country, and carry the plague to whatever part of the kingdom they might be sent. As far, therefore, as he could see, there was no mode in which they could practically carry out such a quarantine. First of all, they would have to establish very large quarantine grounds in various parts of the country. Could they do that at the ports at which the animals arrived? They would have to provide for them ground, and also pasture land for those animals which were grass-fed. They would have to set apart such an enormous space that it would be very difficult to carry out the plan. An experiment had been made at Harwich in respect to quarantine. Some cows and calves were landed from the Netherlands, and they were ordered to be slaughtered, as foot-and-mouth disease appeared among them; but the owners were rather rebellious, thinking that a very strong operation; and they asked that the animals might be allowed to be kept in quarantine. They were accordingly kept six weeks, until the animals affected got well. In the meantime, the shed was thoroughly infected, and at the expiration of that time the expense to the owners of the animals had been of so costly a character that the experiment was not one to
  104
  be repeated. There was the great question, also, to be considered, of what necessity there was for having store stock introduced into this country. On that they had not evidence now before them to show how far we were dependent on foreign countries for our store stock. There were some parts of the country where we did not require to import store animals, while in other parts they were rather necessary for carrying out agricultural operations. Some persons, he knew, had a great preference for cows coming from Holland for dairy purposes, over Shorthorns and Alderneys. All those, however, though they were of great importance, were matters about which they were not at that moment able to speak with anything like certainty. And considering that the attention of the public had been turned to the subject of cattle disease in consequence of the outbreak of that disease—which outbreak, he was happy to say, had been, as far as they knew, arrested—the Government thought that that was a time at which it would be well that further information should be obtained before the very serious step was taken of acceding to the proposition made by the noble Earl and by the Royal Agricultural Society. It was, therefore, the intention of Her Majesty's Government to have a Parliamentary inquiry forthwith into the whole subject of cattle disease, and into other matters connected with the proposal made by the noble Earl.

  INNS OF COURT BILL [H.L.] (NO. 30.)
  A Bill to make provision for the better regulation and government of the Inns of Court: And also,

  GENERAL SCHOOL OF LAW BILL [H.L.]
  (No. 31.) A Bill to establish a General School of Law in England:
  Were severally presented by The Lord SELBORNE; read 1a.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Two o'clock.