Lords Sitting of 21 February 1884

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1878, Amendment (5–16); Contagious Diseases (Animals) (14–17).
Third Reading—Bankruptcy Appeals (County Courts) * (7), and, passed.

EGYPT (AFFAIRS OF THE SOUDAN)—GENERAL GORDON'S PROCLAMATION.—QUESTION.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I wish to ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House (Earl Granville) a Question of which I have given him Notice. He will doubtless have observed in the newspapers of to-day what

1527
professes to be a translation of the Proclamation issued by General Gordon, with respect to the trading in slaves in the Soudan. There are two versions of it; one of which appeared in The Times, and the other coming through Reuter's Agency. I wish to ask the noble Earl, Whether either of them is a correct representation of the document really issued by General Gordon; and, if that is the case, whether it has received the approval of Her Majesty's Government?
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I have also observed the two newspaper versions of the Proclamation. One of them does not apply to the trade in slaves, but to the domestics in slavery in the Soudan. I have also received a telegram from Sir Evelyn Baring, to the effect that he has not yet received the text of the Proclamation. Of course, the noble Marquess will understand that, in regard to any Proclamation, until Her Majesty's Government have had an opportunity of reading it, they will be unable to express any opinion with regard to it. I may add, however, that, as far as our information goes, the confidence of Her Majesty's Government in General Gordon on this particular point is still undiminished.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I quite understand that all the answers of the noble Earl for some time to come will end with that formula. What I rise to ask is, whether he is at all aware of the species of conveyance Sir Evelyn Baring is using to obtain the Proclamation of General Gordon? The newspapers have received it by telegraph. Is Sir Evelyn Baring waiting for a Nile boat, or any similar mode of conveyance?
EARL GRANVILLE: I should think certainly not, and that he is likely to use the telegraph. As to the formula expressing confidence in General Gordon, to which the noble Marquess alluded, I think it is a remarkably good formula.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACT, 1878, AMENDMENT BILL,—(No. 5.)
(The Duke of Richmond and Gordon.)
CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACT, 1878, AMENDMENT BILL,—(No. 5.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into a Committee."—(The Duke of Richmond and Gordon.)
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, that he did not propose to divide the House against the Bill, but simply to protest against its being proceeded with.
  Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly; Amendments made; and Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 16.)

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) BILL.—(No. 14.)
(The lord President.)
CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) BILL.—(No. 14.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to order).
  Clause 1 (Privy Council to prohibit the landing of foreign animals affected with foot and mouth disease).
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON,in moving to leave out—
  "Whenever they are satisfied with respect to any foreign country that, having regard to the sanitary condition of the animals therein, or imported therefrom, to the laws made by such country for the regulation of the importation and exportation of animals, and for the prevention of the introduction or spreading of disease, and to other circumstances, a reasonable security does not exist against the importation from such country of animals affected with foot and mouth disease,"
  and to insert, as an Amendment—
  "Whenever they are not satisfied with respect to any foreign country that the laws thereof relating to the importation and exportation of animals, and to the prevention of the introduction or spreading of disease, and the general sanitary condition of animals therein, are such as to afford reasonable security against the importation therefrom of animals afflicted with foot and mouth disease,"
  said, the object of his Amendment was exactly the converse of the proposition contained in the Bill of the noble Lord (the Lord President). As it stood at present, that Bill gave very little further power to the Privy Council than the law gave at present. The clause contained the word "shall"—that was, "shall prohibit such landing;" but it did not say how the Privy Council were to be bound by it, nor did he see how the law would be made better. By altering the clause as he (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) proposed, it would strengthen the hands of the Privy Council to a greater degree than would be done by the clause if unamended. It would also make the Bill more satisfactory and

  1529
  stronger. What, he asked, could the "other circumstances" be which were mentioned in the clause? He was quite ready to admit that the Bill which had just passed through Committee was much stronger and much more stringent than the present Bill; and if he had the power to carry it, he would prefer his own Bill to that of the noble Lord opposite (the Lord President). But he must look to the probabilities of things. His great object was to get some legislation on this subject during the present Session. That, he thought, was essential, as the country had suffered quite long enough from foot-and mouth disease introduced from abroad; and what they wanted was legislation to put an end to it. He, therefore, should not oppose the measure of the Government, especially as he recognized the fact that, even if their Lordships passed the Bill he had introduced, there was little chance of it becoming law, as it would be opposed by the Government in "another place;" and, considering the majority they possessed, that would be fatal to its progress. Therefore, he looked to see what would be the next best mode of getting legislation; and he thought the Government Bill gave them an opportunity of amending the law, and his great hope was that it would be amended in the manner he proposed. His Amendment was precisely the same as the Resolution passed by the House of Commons last July, on the Motion of Mr. Chaplin, and he asked their Lordships to put it in this Bill. It had been said by the Government, since the Resolution was passed, that their powers exercised under the Privy Council were not strong enough to put it in force, and that legislation was required to give effect to it; consequently, he now gave the Government an opportunity to carry that out; and he trusted that they would not disagree to his proposal, particularly as the Resolution was supported by both political Parties, and if the Government had really the interest of the farmers at heart they would accede to it.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 1, line 12, leave out from ("whenever") to end of clause and insert ("they are not satisfied with respect to any foreign country that the laws thereof relating to the importation and exportation of animals, and to the prevention of the introduction or spreading of disease, and the general sanitary condition of animals
  1530
  therein, are such as to afford reasonable security against the importation therefrom of animals afflicted with foot and mouth disease.")—(The Duke of Richmond and Gordon.)
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, he was not aware that anyone had, on behalf of the Government, said that the Resolution of Mr. Chaplin was the right mode of legislating upon this subject; but what had been said on behalf of the Privy Council, when they received addresses and resolutions asking that the Resolution should be carried into effect, was that they had not the power to do so. By giving effect to it, the Government would have been legislating instead of administering. As to the Resolution itself, they expressed no opinion upon it. As to the noble Duke's Amendment, he (Lord Carlingford) gathered from his speech that his reason for the change which he proposed to make was to make this Bill agree with the Resolution; but, to his mind, that was not a conclusive argument in its favour, and he much preferred the words of the Bill, which had been adopted after very careful consideration. He would give an illustration of the use of the words "other circumstances." The Privy Council, when considering the question of foot-and-mouth disease, was bound to have regard to the state of the law of a country before deciding what action should be taken with reference to that country. But the law of the country might be very good, and yet it might be very badly administered, and that would be a circumstance which it would be important to consider before arriving at a decision. The noble Duke thought the words of the clause not strict enough; but, in his (Lord Carlingford's) opinion, they met the case fairly, and threw a heavy responsibility upon the Privy Council, and would compel them to do everything necessary to be done to put a stop to the importation of foot-and-mouth disease from abroad. The view of those who framed the clause was, that the Privy Council ought to take into consideration all circumstances; and he felt sure that, under the clause, the Privy Council could do, and would be bound to do, all that was required. The effect of the noble Duke's Amendment was that, unless the Privy Council were satisfied that all the conditions prescribed were fulfilled, they would be bound at once

  1531
  to prohibit the importation of animals from that country. But there might be many cases and circumstances in which it could not be proved, to the satisfaction of the Privy Council, that such conditions did exist, and yet it might be most inconvenient and prejudicial to important interests to enforce at once absolute prohibition. Therefore, the Privy Council should be allowed to exercise an alternative, and allow cattle to come to be slaughtered at the port of debarkation. As he had said, he preferred the Bill as it stood, because he thought it was more reasonable, and would be more workable, while it was sufficient to effect what was desired. Under those circumstances, he must oppose the Amendment.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he was very sorry the Government were not able to accept the very moderate and temperate proposal of his noble Friend (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon). Whatever objection he (the Marquess of Salisbury) had to the Bill in its present shape was not diminished, but increased, by what had fallen from the noble Lord opposite (Lord Carling-ford), if, as it appeared, he contemplated that, under the Bill as it stood, the importation of diseased cattle from a country must be a condition precedent to the prohibition of further importation of cattle from that country. The noble Lord must first be sure that disease was there, by the disease coming to our shores, before he would shut it out altogether. Was that not absurd? The very ground of legislation was that they were dealing with one of the subtlest and one of the most mobile forms of contagion with which science was acquainted. Slaughtering animals at the port of landing was no security, as the farmers had found by the terrible experience of 1880 and 1883, when they had to pay an enormous fine for the mistakes of the Privy Council. Do what they would against it, disease was carried in some way or other by drovers and other persons from the ports of slaughter into the country, for they had tried the dangerous experiment of slaughtering animals at the port of landing; and if the disease broke out in the same manner again, it would be no consolation to find that the Privy Council had at last acquired a conviction that there was a dangerous disease in
  1532
  the country from which the animals were imported. By the clause of the Government, if the Privy Council had full and perfect knowledge of all that was going on in the foreign country to which their attention was directed, no doubt they might, under the clause, immediately prohibit importation; but in all cases where their knowledge was imperfect, or where they were in doubt, diseased animals might be admitted; whereas, by his noble Friend's Amendment, the Privy Council would have to shut out the disease altogether from the first, and not be obliged to wait for evidence of its existence by an outbreak in this country. He thought that, where there was any doubt, importations should be stopped. They all knew that the foreign supply of live animals formed but a fractional part of the meat supply in this country, the home supply was still terribly diminished by the importation of disease, and they knew, too, that unless this disease was shut out of the country, farmers and others would not invest their capital in stock, and, consequently, the supply of meat would be lessened. And yet, for the sake of saving the small foreign supply, the Government were willing to palter and tamper with a dangerous enemy, and refuse to take the precautions which agriculturists had found to be necessary. That they should not do, but give the Privy Council full power to keep it out of the country.
  THE LORD CHANCEELORsaid, the two speeches just delivered convinced him that the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) and the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) did not understand what the Amendment proposed to do; and it was, in his opinion, the reverse of temperate. The present law was that, if the Privy Council were satisfied that the state of the law of a foreign country and its sanitary condition were such that they formed a reasonable security against the importation of disease from it, they must admit arrivals from that foreign country, not merely for slaughter, but absolutely free for all purposes; but this Amendment said that the Privy Council must be first satisfied or animals must be prohibited; consequently, the alternative, so far as related to foot-and-mouth disease, would be reduced to one of absolute admission or absolute prohibi-

  1533
  tion—there would be no middle course. The Amendment went far beyond the noble Duke's own Bill. It was total prohibition or free admission; it took away all discretion from the Privy Council, and was an entire reversal of the present law.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he should support the Amendment. Before the discussion, he had had some difficulty in ascertaining the difference between the clause and the Amendment, except that it appeared to him that the words of the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) were more clear than those of the noble Lord the Lord President, because they imposed on the Privy Council the obligation of inquiry, and if they were not satisfied with the result, then they were bound to prohibit importation. Nothing could be more reasonable than the proposition of the noble Duke, and he should therefore vote for the Amendment. Farmers had a perfect right to expect that the Privy Council should make every reasonable inquiry; and if they found that in a particular country there was no security against the exportation of foot-and-mouth disease, there was nothing unreasonable in prohibiting the importation of animals from that country.
  On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause?"
  Their Lordships divided:—Contents 45; Not-Contents 75: Majority 30.

  CONTENTS.

  Selborne, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Calthorpe, L.

  Carlingford, L.

  Carrington, L.

  Grafton, D.

  Churchill, L.

  Westminster, D.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Derby, E.

  Emly, L.

  Granville, E.

  FitzGerald, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

  Morley, E.

  Northbrook, E.

  Hammond, L.

  Sydney, E.

  Houghton, L. Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Eversley, V.

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Kinnaird, L.

  Methuen, L.

  Monson, L. [Teller.]

  Acton, L.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Alcester, L.

  Auckland, L.

  Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]

  Reay, L.

  Bramwell, L.

  Romilly, L.

  Breadalbane, L. (E. Breadalane.)

  Sandhurst, L.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  1534

  Skene, L. (E. Fife.)

  Thurlow, L.

  Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)

  Truro, L.

  Tweeddale, L. (M. Tweeddale.)

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  Sudeley, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Beaufort, D.

  Borthwick, L.

  Bedford, D.

  Boston, L.

  Buckingham and Chandos, D.

  Brabourne, L.

  Braybrooke, L.

  Leeds, D.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Richmond, D.

  Camoys, L.

  Abergavenny, M.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Exeter, M.

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

  Hertford, M.

  Salisbury, M.

  Colchester, L.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Bathurst, E.

  De L Isle and Dudley, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Bradford, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Cadogan, E.

  Forester, L.

  Cairns, E.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Caledon, E.

  Camperdown, E.

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Cawdor, E.

  Headley, L.

  Coventry, E.

  Hopetoun, L. (E. Hopetoun.) [Teller.]

  Dartmouth, E.

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

  Hothfield, L.

  Hylton, L.

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

  Feversham, E.

  Fortescue, E.

  Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

  Hardwicke, E.

  Lovat, L.

  Howe, E.

  Lovel and Holland, L.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  (E. Egmont.)

  Lucan, E.

  Lyveden, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Norton, L.

  Redesdale, E.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Rossmore, L.

  Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

  Rowton, L.

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

  Wharncliffe, E.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Bolingbroke and St. John, V.

  Stewart of Garlies, L.

  Cranbrook, V.

  (E. Galloway.)

  Hawarden, V. [Teller.]

  Tollemache, L.

  Hood, V.

  Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)

  Melville, V.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Abinger, L.

  Ashford, L. (V. Bury)

  Wimborne, L.

  Blantyre, L.

  Windsor, L.

  Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Extension of provisions relating to quarantine).
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, he would explain, with reference to the clause, that the Act of 1878, which provided for the general system of slaughter at the ports, gave the Privy Council power to

  1535
  admit animals into the country, in certain exceptional cases, without requiring that they should be slaughtered. For instance, they were empowered to admit animals which were intended for exhibitioner animals which had been sent from this country for exhibition abroad, subject, of course, to quarantine for any length of time. That power had been found to be extremely convenient; but at present it only applied to those countries the animals of which were admitted for slaughter, and it had no reference to prohibited countries. He might mention that, last year, the Privy Council were asked to allow a certain performing bull to be brought over from France to this country, for the purpose of being exhibited. At that time they were able to exercise the power they possessed, and the animal was admitted without being slaughtered. But France had now become a prohibited country; and, should a similar case arise, the Privy Council could not make an exception, and thus inconvenience and hardship might result. He thought it was only reasonable that the Department should have the power to admit animals from prohibited countries in exceptional cases, and he therefore asked their Lordships to agree to the clause.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, that he had no objection to the clause, which he thought was a perfectly reasonable one.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Amendment of Part Four of Schedule V. of the principal Act).
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, that the object of the clause was to allow cattle to come from parts of a prohibited country, if the Privy Council was satisfied that such parts were absolutely free from infection.
  EARL STANHOPEsaid, he thought the clause would involve risk as regarded the boundaries to be assigned in countries where cattle disease existed. It would also give too wide a discretionary power to the Privy Council, and thus render the Bill valueless. Importation of pneumonia from the United States and Canada might again arise, and be most prejudicial to this country. The Cattle Diseases Committee—a Committee consisting of loading Gentlemen
  1536
  of both Parties, largely interested in agriculture—were strongly opposed to this clause, and intended to press its rejection in "another place." Under these circumstances, he begged to move the omission of the clause.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, it was true the clause conferred on the Privy Council a discretionary power, the use of which would incur a very heavy responsibility; but it was desirable that they should possess it in certain circumstances. There were large interests desirous that the Privy Council should possess the powers given in the clause. Other interests objected, but in some cases it was certainly desirable that the Privy Council should be able to admit cattle from an uninfected part of a country that might be elsewhere infected—for instance, it might be found unnecessary to enforce prohibition or slaughter against every part of a great country like the United States, and particular States might be excepted, if the laws and regulations of the country were satisfactory.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, with regard to the objection of his noble Friend (Earl Stanhope), the boundaries of countries were purely political. There was no reason for insisting that in all cases the limit of presumed infection should coincide with them. He could see no objection to the clause.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Orders to belaid before Parliament) agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Construction of Act and short title).
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, he would suggest that the same powers might be given to Courts of Quarter Sessions by this Bill as they possessed under the Police Acts. The necessity for some such provision was evidenced by the inconvenience that might be otherwise occasioned in peculiarly-situated counties like Worcester.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, he could not entertain the suggestion of the noble Earl, as it would be inexpedient that the Bill should apply to anything but foreign importation.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Part of Act to be temporary).
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he would move that the clause should be left out, as it limited the operation of the Act to two years. If it were necessary now to exclude foreign disease from this country, it might be just as necessary in two years' time. He would ask anyone acquainted with the subject, would they get any person to put capital into a business which might be turned upside down in two years? If the clause were retained, the Bill would be perfectly useless. He would therefore ask their Lordships, in the strongest terms, to strike out the clause, and give the public the benefit of the Bill. He said if it were passed with this limitation it would not create the confidence which was necessary to induce agriculturists to put capital into the business.
  Amendment moved, "To strike out Clause 6."—[The Duke of Richmond and Gordon.)
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL)said, he thought the proposal in the clause a perfectly reasonable one; and he was not convinced to the contrary by what had fallen from his noble Friend (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon). The subject was a very difficult one, and circumstances might alter so much during the next two years as to make it by no means certain that the method their Lordships were adopting in dealing with it was the right one. He, therefore, thought it very desirable that Parliament should, in two years, be under the necessity of reconsidering the subject. There was no reason why the Act should be less rigorously enforced because it was temporary. He was unable to accept the Amendment.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHsaid, it was necessary, above all things, that there should be confidence and certainty in the legislation of Parliament; for it was the uncertainty of the law which distressed and interfered with the agricultural interest in this country. Neither of those requisites would be given, if they were to be left under the impression that at the end of two years some further changes might be made in the laws regulating the importation of foreign cattle. If the measure lapsed, and diseas were introduced, they knew at what a
  1538
  loss it would have to be stamped out, in the sacrifice of animals and the depreciation of breeding herds and of dairies. Therefore, what they wished to attack was the cause, in order that they might not be put to the expense of dealing with the effects. He did not believe that anyone who was conversant with the insidious nature of foot-and-mouth disease would assert that it would be stamped out in two years; and, that being so, why limit the operation of the Act to that period? It was not reasonable that they should be asked again to legislate on this subject in two years. If there was a complete disappearance of the disease, it would be no longer incumbent upon the Legislature to impose those restrictions upon the importation of foreign cattle.
  THE EARL OF SUFFOLK AND BERK-SHIREsaid, he most cordially supported the Amendment. The farmers were in earnest upon the subject, and, rightly or wrongly, expected great things from the measure; therefore, why should they not give them a full measure, especially when it was remembered that one of the advantages of the Bill was that it would largely increase breeding operations? He was sorry to be obliged to differ from the noble Lord the Lord President; but he believed that the term of two years was not nearly enough; that it was of no use at all, and made the measure of no avail. There was nothing more unreasonable than the cry of Protection got up against this measure. The more the farmers were encouraged in raising live stock, the greater would be the increase in the number of cattle, which was equivalent to a cheaper supply of food for the people. Increased production would bring about a decrease of prices, and the consumer would not be prejudiced by the omission of the clause.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, that as a veteran Free Trader, he should support the Amendment. There was no truth in the cry of Protection which had been raised, and the Bill would favour the production both of meat and milk. While the stock of neat cattle in the country was at present much below what it used to be, and the number of sheep also, the value of cereals had much diminished, so that extensive breeding to supply our present deficiency of stock became doubly important. But

  1539
  this required a sense of security on the part of the farmer, and the proposed cessation of the measure in two years would not encourage them to enter largely into cattle breeding. It was the most effectual way to discourage them. The supply of food was in some measure supplemented by the importation from America; but it was most important that there should be an increase in the production of milk, as a plentiful supply of milk was most essential to the health of the whole population, and especially of the young, and except in the costly form of condensed milk it was impossible to import it from abroad. In that shape it was not really available to the people.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, that after the experience of the last Division, he would not put their Lordships to the trouble of dividing again.
  Amendment agreed to; Clause struck out accordingly.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Monday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 17.)

RIVERS CONSERVANCY AND FLOODS PREVENTION—LEGISLATION.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNasked, Whether it is intended to introduce the Floods Prevention Bill in the House of Lords? There were many reasons why it should be so, as the Bill was one which raised no Party feelings, and had more than once been introduced into their Lordships' House. It was not likely that a favourable opportunity for introducing it into the other House would soon present itself, and there would be considerable danger of its not reaching their Lordships till a very late date, when it would be impossible to give it that careful consideration which it deserved.
  LORD CARRINGTONsaid, he regretted that he could not give an answer to the Question. But the Government were fully aware of the importance of the question, and as soon as the state of Public Business would permit, were fully determined to bring in a Bill on the subject during the Session; but he was unable to state definitely in which House.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, that, if, the Bill did not reach their Lordships by the 15th of July, he should move its rejection, on the ground that there would not be sufficient time to consider it.

ARMY-DRESS OF THE ARMY—THE OSTRICH FEATHER HEAD-DRESS OF THE HIGHLAND REGIMENTS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYasked the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether any order has been promulgated for the discontinuance of the Highland feather bonnet; or whether time will be given for further consideration of the subject in virtue of the very strong feeling entertained upon it in Scotland? He also asked, Whether the Report of the Inspector General of Recruiting is likely to be laid on the Table of the House within the next fortnight, as was the case last year? Two years ago, in deference to what was termed in military circles the "Wolseley Craze," there was introduced a great change, at considerable expense, in the uniform of the Army. A further change was now proposed with regard to Highland regiments. This change was looked upon with great concern, not only by the men whom it would affect, but also by the public generally of Scotland. To show why so much importance was attached to it by Highland regiments, he might mention that the Black Watch were the bonnet as far back as 1724; and, in 1757, ostrich feathers were added, though not at first in any great quantity. Old portraits of that day of the Earls of Sutherland and Eglinton and The MacLeod were to be seen with the feathers. The Black Watch, as a reward for gallantry in Flanders in 1795, was allowed to wear a red hackle, whereas the other Highland regiments were a white one. The matter of the bonnet might seem a small one. It was simply the black Kilmarnock bonnet pulled upright; but the Highland regiments attached im portance to it because of its associations, and why it was proposed to do away with it he could not conceive. He noticed that the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War was reported to have said in "another place" that this bonnet was a head-dress which had never been worn abroad in any action.

  1541
  That was a mistake, for he had seen an old print depicting the death of Sir Ralph Abercrombie at the battle of Alexandria, and there the bonnet appeared as a portion of the garb of the "Highlanders. He had also made inquiries on the point, and he found that, so far from that being the case, it had been worn at Waterloo, in the Peninsula, in the Crimea, and during the Indian Mutiny. He hoped the noble Lord would be able to announce that the Government had more important things to consider in the War Office than the change of the Scottish bonnet. With regard to the second part of his Question, he hoped his noble Friend would be able to answer it; he would remind him that the Report of the Inspector General of Recruiting was laid on the Table last year, on the 7th of March.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY,in reply, said, as to the latter part of the Question of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Galloway), he hoped the Report of the Inspector General of Recruiting would be laid on the Table of the House by the end of next week, or earlier than it was last year. The noble Earl concluded his speech by saying he hoped they had other matters to attend to at the War Office than the proposed change in the Scottish bonnet. As to that, he was bound to say that importance had been given to the subject rather by the noble Earl, than by themselves. In answer to it, he had to say, in the first place, no order had been promulgated for the abolition of the bonnet. But in 1881, the then Secretary of State for War decided that, when the present bonnets were worn out, no new ones should be ordered. It was rather curious that that decision was based on the recommendation of a Committee which reported in these words—
  "That the head-dress is costly, and as it is never worn in active service, and has no national origin, it is desirable that it should he replaced by the true national head-dress—the bonnet."
  The noble Earl had referred to the fact that the Black Watch had worn the ostrich feathers in 1757; and it was somewhat remarkable that the Report from which he (the Earl of Morley) had just quoted was signed by Colonel Macpherson, who commanded the Black
  1542
  Watch, and Sir Archibald Alison; and they could not get two more representative men than those two gallant Scottish officers. He did not think the House would expect him to enter into the archæology of the subject; but he believed it to be a generally-admitted fact, that the ostrich feather head-dress was first worn in Egypt at the beginning of the present century, at the time of Sir Ralph Abercrombie's Expedition. That that was the earliest date there was no doubt. Possibly, feathers might have been put into Scottish bonnets before that; but he, himself, had some prints of the middle of the last century, and had been shown a great many other old prints, and certainly none of these prints had any trace of the somewhat extraordinary head-dress at present worn by the Highland regiments. The noble Earl further said that the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War said that this bonnet was never worn in active service. He (the Earl of Morley) did not think that those were the exact words of the noble Marquess. What the Secretary of State for War did was to quote from the Report to which he had just referred, that the head-dress was costly, and was never worn in active service. He (the Earl of Morley) did not think he said it never had been worn. He believed he was right in saying that at present it was never worn in active service, nor had it been since the Crimea.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAY: It was worn in the Indian Mutiny.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY: Only for a short time, and very rarely; indeed, he had heard it on the authority of Crimean officers that although it was worn at the Alma, they seldom or ever saw the Highland bonnet again during the Crimean War. This question had been discussed in "another place," and a Return had been prepared, which he would be very glad to lay on the Table, showing the cost of the feather-bonnet as compared with the cost of the head-dress as worn in the other branches of the Army. It showed that the expense of the feather-bonnet was very much larger than that of any head-dress in the Army, except the bearskin of the Guards. But the original cost was not the full measure of the expense it involved, for he was informed the bonnet, although it was sup-

  1543
  posed to last eight years, required constant repair, and was constantly the cause of stoppages in the soldiers' pay, a thing it was desirable to discourage. For the benefit of any of their Lordships who might think of sending their sons into the Army, he might state that he was informed that the cost of an officer's head-dress was £15. If this head-dress had really no national origin, and if it was inconvenient—which was admitted—and if also it was very costly, he thought very little was to be said in favour of its retention. The noble Earl seemed to think there was a strong popular feeling on the subject in Scotland. Well, he had quoted the opinion of two distinguished officers on the point, of which doubtless they were better judges than he (the Earl of Morley) could be; but he had heard the opinions of many other officers; and, judging from the opinions he had heard, and the letters written to the newspapers—some of which he had seen, giving some comical accounts of the dress of the Highlanders in wet weather—he gathered there was not much feeling of the kind, and no unanimous opinion as to the Scottish bonnet. He would admit that, were it not inconvenient, and were it not costly, it would be very desirable to respect associations, particularly associations connected with such gallant regiments as the Scottish. But a strong case would have to be made out on these grounds to justify the retention of the feather-bonnet, which was now, at any rate, never worn abroad, was by most authorities admitted to be an inconvenient and unserviceable head-dress, was undoubtedly very costly, and had no national origin whatever.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he gathered from the remarks of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Morley) that there was no strong feeling in favour of the retention of this head-dress. He could assure him quite differently, for if the noble Earl had been present last night at an entertainment over which he (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) presided, of no less than 200 Scotchmen from the county of Moray, when mention was made that there was an idea to do away with the Scottish bonnet, he would have formed a very accurate opinion of, at all events, 200 Scotchmen assembled for social purposes, regarding that proposal. The
  1544
  noble Earl had told the House about the cost of the bonnet, but he had omitted to say how long it wore. He (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) had been told it lasted for a very long time; and that, though it might be expensive in the first instance, it lasted for a much longer time than many people expected. He understood the noble Earl to say, because the bonnet was never worn on active service, that was a reason for getting rid of it. The same might be said of the bearskin of the Guards, for they did not take it with them when they went to Egypt. In conclusion, he only rose to say he believed there was a very strong feeling amongst all classes of Scotchmen in favour of the retention of this national head-dress.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, the noble Earl (the Earl of Morley) had spoken about the expense and cost of this head-dress; but that expense was trifling when compared with the cost entailed by the constant changes in the other head-dresses of the Army. During the time he had been in the Militia he had had 15 different kinds of head-dress. He hoped the Scottish bonnet would not be abolished.
  LORD WAVENEYsaid, it was a fact that the Scottish bonnet was first worn on active service. It was worn by the soldiers of Abercrombie when they went to Egypt; in fact, in the very region in which the Scotch regiments had lately gained so much distinction. They were wearing the Kilmarnock bonnet at the time, and that gallant Commander told them to protect themselves as well as they could from the intense heat. They did so, for they captured a lot of ostriches that were in the neighbourhood, and having plucked them used their feathers to protect them from the fierce heat of the sun. That was the origin of the Scottish bonnet, and, looking at its glorious antecedents, he trusted it would not be abandoned.
  House adjourned at Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.