Sitting of 9 March 1864

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Lisburn Election Petition, nominated (List of Committee); Berwick-upon- Tweed Election Petition, nominated (List of Committee); on Poor Relief, Mr. Ayrton added; on Taxation (Ireland), Mr. Hankey added.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Trespass (Ireland) [Bill 13]; Weights and Measures (Metric System) [Bill 24]; Cattle Diseases Prevention [Bill 27]; Cattle, &e. Importation [Bill 28].
Select Committee—On Chain Cables and Anchors* nominated (List of Committee, p. 1363.)
Third Reading—Land Drainage (Provisional Orders)* [Bill 25].
Withdrawn—Watching of Towns (Ireland) [Bill 22].

LISBURN ELECTION PETITION.

  SELECT COMMITTEE.
  Sir WILLIAM MILES reported from the General Committee of Elections, the names of the Members of the Select Committee appointed to try and determine the matter

  1705
  of the Petitions complaining of an undue Election and Return for the Borough of Lisburn:—WILLIAM EDWARD FORSTER, esquire; FREDERICK NORTH, esquire (Hastings); HENRY PAULL, esquire; WILLIAM STIRLING, esquire; HUGH EDWARD ADAIR, esquire, Chairman.

  BERWICK-UPON-TWEED ELECTION PETITION.—SELECT COMMITTEE.
  Sir WILLIAM MILES reported from the General Committee of Elections, the names of the Members of the Select Committee appointed to try and determine the matter of the Petition complaining of an undue Election and Return for the Borough of Berwick-upon-Tweed:—The Honourable F. LEVESON GOWER; WILLIAM POLLARD-URQUHART, esquire; JAMES BANKS STANHOPE, esquire; CHARLES TURNER, esquire (Lancashire); ROBERT LONGFIELD, esquire, Chairman.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

TRESPASS IRELAND BILL— [BILL 13.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. W. R. ORMSBY GORE,in moving the second reading of the Bill, said, it was a Bill to amend the law in certain cases relative to the recovery of penalties for trespass on lands in Ireland in pursuit of game, and to prevent the necessity of the occupiers of land not interested in such game being made party prosecutors in proceedings for the recovery of such penalties. The object of the measure was to assimilate the law of Ireland in this respect to that which had existed in England since the Act of 1831, and which had been found to work very well. According to the law of England it was not necessary to obtain the consent of the tenant to proceedings in cases of trespass. In Ireland, on the other hand, the tenant was in this unfortunate predicament, that he must either risk the displeasure of his landlord in refusing to lend his name to a prosecution, or incur the enmity of some ruffian who would be revenged if the tenant appeared against him. All the Bill sought to do was to oblige the landlord, where lie had the right of game, to make use of his own name in a prosecution instead of that of the tenant. As the law-stood at present, it was very inoperative. For instance, on mountain land, where tenants had the right of grazing cattle, when a prosecution for trespass became
  1706
  necessary, every such tenant's name must be put in the prosecution, and perhaps there might be forty or fifty of them, and the omission of a single name would vitiate the prosecution. He had had a number of letters from Ireland approving of the principle of the Bill, and there could be no doubt that it would relieve the tenant very considerably.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. W.R. 0. Gore.)
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he did not object to the second reading of the Bill, but on several points it required amendment. It did not give the right of appeal which was given in the English Act, and the second clause was not sufficiently clearly drawn. If there was no agreement with the tenant in writing, the right of preserving game would not hold good; and he thought the probable effect of the Bill would be to induce landlords to enter into such agreements in order that they might have the right of sporting over their estates. He would be glad to assist his hon. Friend in carrying the Bill through.
  Bill read 2o, and committed for Wednesday, 13th April.

WATCHING OF TOWNS (IRELAND) BILL.

  [BILL 22.] SECOND READING.
  BILL WITHDRAWN.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIR HERVEY BRUCE,in moving the second reading of the Bill, said, that its object was to amend the 17 & 18 Vict. c. 103, entitled "An Act to make better Provision for the paving, lighting, draining, cleansing, supplying with water, and Regulation of Towns in Ireland," and which, among other things, enabled the Lord Lieutenant to increase the constabulary force stationed in any town to act as watchmen by night, and on special occasions by day. This provision having been frequently found inoperative in consequence of the expense, which was thereby thrown on the particular town, the present measure had been introduced to remedy the evil. For this purpose it gave the Lord Lieutenant the power to increase the police force of any town on the application of the town commissioners; and the town commissioners were only to appoint in case the Lord Lieutenant should decline to exercise his power. The Bill was necessary on account of the failure of the police to do their duty in Ireland. This was the opinion of the greater part of the magis-

  1707
  tracy in Ireland, and it received some corroboration from the charges of the Judges of assize. Mr. Justice Christian had recently pointed out that the perpetrators of forty-nine offences of a criminal character went undetected, with one exception. The causes must be found, the learned Judge suggested, either in the unwillingness of the injured person to assist in the discovery of the offenders, or a deficiency of skill and energy on the part of the constabulary, arising probably from their too high military organization. Mr. Justice Keogh made similar remarks, and pointed out, that although cases of sending threatening letters abounded no one had been made amenable. Mr. Justice Fitzgerald, at the Cavan Assizes, drew attention to the fact that thirty criminal offences had been committed for which no one had been brought to justice. The fact was that the magistracy of Ireland were not backed by the police as they used to be, owing to the growing desire of the police to isolate themselves to a great extent from the local authorities of the land. No doubt the police were a respectable body of men; but the distinguished officers at the head of the Irish Constabulary had, he thought, mistaken the functions on which that great force was organized. He could understand the desire of the Secretary for Ireland to protect this magnificent production of his father, which was unequalled for efficiency when it was established. It would be all the more efficient now if Sir Henry Brownrigg would consult a little more the magistracy of the country. The Irish Constabulary cost the country about £750,000, and very little good was obtained for that great expenditure. The night-watching of towns was certainly not one of the objects obtained. In Clonmel the inhabitants paid for night-watching out of their private pockets. Last year, the town commissioners of Coleraine found it impossible to have their town watched under the Act 9 Geo. IV. They took the opinion of Mr. Brewster, who said that the 17 & 18 Vict, did away with the powers they possessed under the 9 Geo. IV. On the 10th of August the town commissioners wrote to Dublin Castle, and, in reply, were acquainted with the charge for supplying them with head constables and police. They were also informed that the Government declined to pay any portion of the charge for night-watching from the Consolidated Fund. The town commissioners asked for three policemen to watch the town of Coleraine by night; but the
  1708
  Inspector General of Constabulary declared that the number was inadequate to provide for the due alternation of night duty and rest, and the least number of men that could be sent was one head constable and ten sub-constables. The expense of such a body would be £600 per annum, while the whole amount of rates which the town commissioners were entitled to levy did not exceed £450. The population of Coleraine was only 6,208. In the county of Derry there was a population of 184,000, and 155 police were considered sufficient, and yet in a peaceable town like Coleraine it was gravely stated that there ought to be eleven additional constables. The most important clause in the Bill which the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. Bagwell) had introduced last year was the fourth, by which it was provided that the Lord Lieutenant, on the application of the town commissioners, should appoint a sufficient number of able watchmen. The principal provisions of the Bill were, that it should be lawful for the Lord Lieutenant, or other chief Governor of Ireland, upon the application of the town commissioners, to increase the constabulary force to act as watchmen in the town; but if, after three months from the time of such application, the Lord Lieutenant or other chief Governor did not provide such force, that it should be lawful for the town commissioners themselves to appoint a sufficient number of watchmen to do the duty. The expenses were to be paid by the Commissioners out of the general assessment authorized by the Act of 1854. He trusted the Chief Secretary would advise Sir Henry Brownrigg to accept the compromise contained in the Bill, and he now begged to move its second reading.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Heney Bruce.)
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he could not allow the Bill to be read a second time without some remarks. The hon. Baronet, in proposing the second reading of the Bill, had gone out of his way to quote the charges of Judges Christian, Keogh, and Fitzgerald at the recent assizes. It was perfectly true that these Judges had been disporting themselves lately in attacking the constabulary, the country gentlemen, and the magistracy ["No, no!"]; but he thought the observations they had made were unjustifiable and uncalled for. Judge Christian had distinctly referred to laxity on the part of the magis-

  1709
  trates, if not lately, at the summer assizes of 1863, and to their carelessness in the protection of life and property. In the great majority of cases, however, to which Judge Christian referred as instances in which the guilty were not made amenable to justice, the persons injured declined to come forward to prosecute; and how, then, were the police or the magistrates to blame? How could they compel people to prosecute against their will? His hon. Friend had referred to Sir Henry Brownrigg and the military organization of the police force. But if the force were less military, that would not induce persons to come forward to prosecute. He (Sir Robert Peel) could not allow any Judge, no matter whether Judge Christian or Judge Keogh, to go out of his way to insult the country gentlemen, without stating that the police and the magistracy did pull to a very great extent together, and were on terms which did tend to the prevention of crime; nor was it possible to have a force better adapted to the wants of the country than the Irish constabulary. The hon. Baronet had attacked the constabulary, and said that he brought in this Bill because they were inefficient. But he (Sir Robert Peel) thought it was not possible to conceive a more retrograde piece of legislation than that which the Bill would enact. The hon. Baronet wanted to have two forces in the towns which were under the Act of 1854—on the one side those old "Charlies," ill-paid, ill-conditioned, and inefficient, who would go prowling about the streets, not only by night, but in the day time; and on the other the constabulary; and the result would be the peace of the town would be rather disturbed than protected. The Bill of the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. Bagwell) was last year rejected by the House; his noble Friend opposite (Lord Naas) moved its rejection, and now the hon. Baronet tried a similar measure. He (Sir Robert Peel) was perfectly aware that at first he did give encouragement to the hon. Member for Clonmel; but upon further information he gave notice that he could not support the Bill; he believed it objectionable, and he believed the present measure objectionable also. It was perfectly true that the town commissioners of Coleraine applied to the Lord Lieutenant for an increased police force; but they asked for only three additional men. But it could not but be obvious that three men could not watch a town so large as Coleraine. The people of Dundalk applied for fourteen
  1710
  men, and they got them; and when Sir Henry Brownrigg proposed that ten men should be gent to Coleraine, he did not propose more than was actually necessary. But why was Coleraine in such a dreadful state of vice and immorality that it required this additional assistance? Cork, Galway, or Waterford did not want "Charlies" to run their heads into every mischief. [Sir HERVEY BRUCE said, he had not stated that vice or immorality prevailed in Coleraine.] Why, then, ask the town to contribute some £200 additional for the support of those men? If Cork, Waterford, and Galway were satisfied with the protection they had at present, why should not Coleraine be? It would be quite evident to any hon. Gentleman who had read the Bill, that it could not become law. Even his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Dunne), who took an interest in everything which affected the country gentlemen in Ireland, could never give his assent to Clause 6. It was not only at night time, but even during the day that they would have those ill-conditioned, ill-paid, drunken old "Charlies" promenading the town. ["No!"] They would be ill-paid because the town rates could not afford to pay them well. If they took £200 out of the rates for the pay of those men, it would leave only about £300 for putting up clocks and other improvements in Coleraine. Was it possible, then, that the House of Commons could consent to that retrograde piece of legislation? He must beg, in the name of the Lord Lieutenant, to take exception to Clause 5. By that clause it was provided that, if the Lord Lieutenant should not, within three months, have sent down constabulary at the desire of the Town Commissioners, then his authority was to be passed over, and those Commissioners were to appoint for themselves. Nothing could be more objectionable. The last paragraph of Clause 4 contained the words, "The salaries and wages shall in no case exceed half the rates which the said Commissioners are authorized to levy." He did not know whether it was the Town Commissioners of Coleraine that drew up the Bill, but what was the meaning of half the rates they were authorized to levy? To levy where? Was it in the town? Was it annually? Suppose the Lord Lieutenant were to send down five additional constables, and if four would cost £180 or £200, five would cost about £250. But if that sum were more than half the rates which the Commissioners were entitled to raise,

  1711
  who was to pay the remainder? The Government would not, and he supposed his hon. Friend would not. It was evident the Bill had been most carelessly drawn, and it was one which he hoped his hon. Friend would not press to n division. Whenever he (Sir Robert Peel) heard of a case in which the constabulary appeared not to have acted respectfully towards the magistracy, he made it a rule to bring it under the notice of the Inspector General, and to ask for an inquiry. If his hon. Friends would only leave matters as they were—for they had got one of the finest police forces in the world, and it was not their fault if persons would not come forward to prosecute—they would find that Judges Christian, Keogh, and Fitzgerald would have every year reason to congratulate the country on the improved state of affairs.
  LORD NAASsaid, while he partly concurred with the Chief Secretary in his objections to the provisions of the Bill, he regretted that the right hon. Baronet held out no hopes of a remedy for the great grievance complained of. Nobody was more ready to admit the great services of the constabulary, but that should not prevent him from expressing an opinion that some slight alterations in the organization of the force would greatly improve its efficiency. Any considerable change in the organization of the body would be a serious evil, but it might in many ways be made more efficient. The case complained of was very simple. His hon. Friend (Sir Hervey Bruce) complained that in the town he represented the constabulary, acting under the orders of the Government, refused to perform the duties of watchmen, But the right hon. Baronet did not touch that point, nor attempt to show that the constabulary performed such duties. On the contrary, he (Lord Naas) believed they had refused over and over again to do so, and the Commissioners of Police had declared they could not. The town of Coleraine was a very small as well as a very quiet place; he could testify to that, because he bad represented it for six years, and was it to be supposed that with thirteen men in the town and district they could not be properly watched? One man kept up at night to patrol the streets would be sufficient, so that out of eleven men one would have to be up only one night in the ten. But the commissioners of the town were ready to pay for three or four men, and then they were told the duties could not be performed unless they received eleven men more, which would cost them
  1712
  a considerable sum. He believed the men were perfectly willing to do the duty, but the authorities in the force had set their faces against it. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take the matter into his consideration. When he (Lord Naas) was Chief Secretary the thing was partly done, and gave great satisfaction. He had listened with considerable regret to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman upon the charges of the Judges. The right hon. Gentleman was entirely in error when he stated that Judge Christian had made any attack upon the magistracy. Nothing of the kind. He had got a copy of the charge in his hand, and the only allusion it made to the magistrates was in this single sentence at the end:—" It is for you (the grand jury) and for the magistrates to consider this subject, and to discover a remedy." And when a gentleman holding the position which Judge Christian occupied felt it his duty to make so alarming a statement as that a very small proportion only of the crime committed was followed by detection, the right hon. Baronet was not justified in saying that Judge Christian and the other Judges whom he named had been "disporting themselves" in the country, and making attacks upon the magistrates and the police. He (Lord Naas) was not in favour of establishing a spy system among the police; but the rules about the police not going out without reporting themselves, or wearing plain clothes, which applied exclusively to a military force, were of too stringent a character in regard to a police force, and it would not be considered by those who were most interested in the detection of crime, that these were the best means of setting about it. The right hon. Gentleman might be sure that all the dissatisfaction which existed in Ireland on this subject would not soon subside, and unless something was done, an attempt would be made before long to bring the whole question of the organization and constitution of the Irish constabulary under the notice of the House; and if a Committee in any ways might be found by which the exertions of the constabulary might be rendered far more effective for the public safety. He hoped these remarks would not be construed into any attack upon the constabulary—they were an excellent force, and under most trying circumstances had done their duty; but some alteration in their constitution was necessary to adapt them to the wants of the country. With regard to the remark

  1713
  that people were unwilling to prosecute, he had one observation to make. The Crown undertook the prosecution of every kind of offence in Ireland, and in the present state of things with great advantage to the country, and therefore if there was any indisposition on the part of persons to prosecute that was not so much matter, as the business was taken up in every instance by the authorities themselves. He hoped the right hon. Baronet would consider this important question. He believed that the right hon. Baronet would find little difficulty in making the rules and regulations regarding the police a little more elastic, and consequently much more acceptable to that body, as well as to the public generally.
  MR. HERBERTsaid, he concurred generally in the views expressed by the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary, in regard to this Bill, and if there were a division he should certainly go into the same lobby with him. It was, therefore, by no means in the spirit of hostility to his right hon. Friend that he wished to say a few words in reference to some expressions which fell from him in regard to three eminent Judges in Ireland. He thought, considering that those expressions had fallen from a gentleman holding so high and important a position as his right hon. Friend, that they would be misconstrued, and that they would therefore do much injury in Ireland. In his zeal to defend a force of which his right hon. Friend was supposed to be a great favourite—[Sir ROBERT PEEL: No, no—not particularly so]—well, the force was one which was a favourite of his (Mr. Herbert's), and he believed of Irish gentlemen generally, being one of the finest bodies of men in the world. But his right hon. Friend, in his zeal for the defence of that force, had used expressions towards those three Judges which he was certain, upon reflection, he would regret. Having read the charges alluded to of those Judges, he (Mr. Herbert) confessed he did not see anything in them which could fairly be construed either into an attack upon the police or the magistracy of Ireland. They were only doing their duty when they alluded to defects which many persons believed to exist in the police force. That opinion prevailed very generally among the grand juries, and he thought that the grand jurors, to whom those charges were addressed, instead of feeling insulted by them, were glad to hear their own opinions concurred in by the Bench. He had the pleasure of knowing Judge Christian, as well as the
  1714
  other two Judges alluded to, and had witnessed the ability with which they had discharged their onerous duties. He was convinced that they were incapable of saying anything that could be construed into an insult to the police or any other body of functionaries. They all knew how desirable it was that nothing calculated to throw discredit upon the Executive power in Ireland should come from any person in authority. His object in rising was simply to afford his right hon. Friend an opportunity of somewhat modifying his language, as he was certain that the right hon. Baronet never intended to say anything that could be considered disrespectful to those Judges. They were men of the highest character and honour, and who performed their duties in n manner to give general satisfaction to all parties. He wished especially to speak of Mr. Justice Fitzgerald, who was for some time his (Mr. Herbert's) colleague in the government of Ireland. He believed that that learned gentleman was one of the ablest and most temperate Judges that ever sat upon the Irish Bench. He therefore hoped that his right hon. Friend would so qualify his words as to take from them the sting which they certainly conveyed.
  SIR ROBERT PEELwished to explain that in the observations which had just fallen from him, he did not mean to blame the Judges for any remarks they might think it necessary to make. He did not stand there as the champion of the Irish police, but as the advocate of law and order; and when he saw Mr. Justice Christian and the other Judges in their judicial capacity attacking not only the constabulary but the county magistracy for what, he believed, was no fault of theirs, he must say he thought that they were going out of their way altogether. With reference to the remarks of Judge Christian the other day on the cases brought under his notice, in no less than thirty of them parties had refused to come forward to prosecute. When the majority of the cases of failure of justice resulted from persons not coming forward to prosecute, he did not think the Judge was justified in the remarks which he had made.
  SIR FREDERICK HEYGATEsaid, he was glad to find that the county which he had the honour to represent (Londonderry) deserved some praise. Coleraine was no doubt a very orderly place, and had ever been distinguished by the ability and eminence of its representatives, even up to the present time. But he thought it a hard

  1715
  case when a grievance undoubtedly existed, and the town commissioners, who had to look after the peace of the town, asked for additional facilities, that no attention should be paid to them by the Government. Coleraine had an important railway station, and every one knew what an amount of confusion and disorder arose upon the arrival of trains. Now, the complaint was, that the few police who were stationed there, acted more like independent lookers on, and like persons who took pleasure in seeing the arrivals and departures. Large cities like Londonderry and Belfast had police of their own; the grievance complained of therefore did not so much apply to those places. But it was very hard, indeed, not to have extra police in places where they were absolutely required, and at a moderate expense. He was sure that his lion. Friend the Member for Coleraine (Sir Hervey Bruce) had no wish to take this matter out of the hands of the Government, nor had he any particular desire for what the right hon. Baronet designated the "Charlies." The Bill especially provided that the extra police were to be appointed by the Lord Lieutenant, and should be considered as a portion of the constabulary of Ireland. It rested with the Government by altering the rules and regulations of the Irish police, which he believed was the best course to take, to render the body more efficient and more acceptable to the public generally. He had not the least objection to introduce in Committee any alteration that might be thought desirable, and was quite ready to agree to what was just and reasonable on the subject.
  MR. GEORGEsaid, that if the explanations of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) had been anything more than a reiteration of the imputations which he had cast upon three of the Irish Judges, he (Mr. George) should have shrunk from renewing a topic which must be painful even to the right hon. Baronet. But as a member of that honourable profession over which those learned Judges presided, he should be ashamed to sit still when he heard a Gentleman holding so high and important a position in the Irish Executive as the right hon. Gentleman, saying that those Judges had been "disporting themselves" whilst discharging one of the most important duties belonging to their office. The charge of the right hon. Gentleman was levelled, too, against three of the highest judicial functionaries of the land. He thanked God that the Judges of Her Majesty's courts of common law
  1716
  were independent of every Government; that they were independent of that censure which the right hon. Baronet had thought it becoming his position to cast upon them. When he recollected the eminent individuals against whom this attack was levelled, he could not avoid saying, that he believed that it came with a less grace in reference to them than to any others. He had been on intimate terms with Mr. Justice Christian, Mr. Justice Fitzgerald, and Mr. Justice Keogh, having been associated with them during many years of his legal life; and whether he considered their conduct whilst at the bar or upon the bench, he believed them to be in every way undeserving of the smallest censure or reproach. He felt he was, at all events, as qualified as the right hon. Baronet to say whether those eminent and distinguished functionaries were at all likely, in the solemn discharge of their duties as Her Majesty's Judges, to "disport themselves," as the right hon. Baronet elegantly expressed it, before any tribunal they were constitutionally addressing. But the right hon. Baronet, in his desire to divert the attention of the House from the charges that had been made against the constabulary by the three learned Judges alluded to, and also by hon. Members in the course of the debate, had misrepresented or misquoted Judge Christian's charge to the grand jury. The learned Judges were bound to call attention to the state of crime as shown in the calendar; and it had been the universal practice in Ireland for the learned Judges to refer at the same time to the amount of undetected crime exhibited by the Constabulary Returns. Mr. Justice Christian, in his charge to the grand jury of Roscommon, after recapitulating the eighty-seven offences that appeared to have been committed in that county, stated that not more than one-half of the prisoners charged had been even attempted to be brought to justice; and this he attributed to two causes—first, probably from a disinclination on the part of the parties to prosecute; and secondly, from intimidation. The former the learned Judge stated "he thought was a subject well worthy of the consideration of the magistrates and the grand jury, because the constabulary, which in other respects was a very effective body, was deficient in energy and zeal in that part of their duty which had reference to the detection of offenders—a duty which he thought was not very popular in the force, particularly in the higher grades, resulting from the high

  1717
  military training of the body." The learned Judge added —and this part of his charge had been misunderstood by the right hon. Baronet—"that it was the duty of the magistracy and the grand jury to consider the subject, and discover, if possible, a remedy, because they were in a certain degree accountable for the peace of their respective counties." He (Mr. George) denied that the learned Judge, in the remarks made by him, meant to impute to the grand jury or to the magistracy that they had failed in their part of public duty; but that he had merely held out to them, as he was bound to do, that they were responsible for the peace of the county, and that one of the chief modes by which they could do it was by seeing that the constabulary discharged those duties for which they were originally appointed, and not merely by the attainment of that high military character which their training had given to them. When a learned Judge found that out of eight-seven persons charged with crime, forty only had been made amenable to justice, he was only discharging his duty in calling the attention of the grand jury to that circumstance.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) had rightly interpreted his feelings with regard to this measure, and he certainly would vote against it yet. It was but right that when three-quarters of a million of money was collected from the people for the support of the constabulary, that places like Coleraine should be protected without additional cost; and he conceived that the constabulary were bound to perform that duty themselves. The conduct of the constabulary, scattered about as it was in small parties all over the country, was most exemplary; but it was not only the opinion of the Judges and the magistrates that they were not a good detective force, but the men were of the same opinion. They were not merely willing to become a good detective force, but they regretted they had not the power of becoming so. They had been formed for a double purpose—that of detecting crime, and a kind of military army of occupation. They were efficient as a military body, but that was inconsistent with their being an efficient detective body for the repression of crime. And how could it be otherwise? They were kept under stricter discipline than was adopted in the army, for they could not leave the barracks without the permission of the constable who was in command, neither
  1718
  could they put on plain clothes or mix with the people, and become familiar with what was going on. No one knew less of the doings of the people than the constabulary; but it was the system, and not the men, which ought to be blamed for it. From his experience as a magistrate, he had obtained more information as to the state of the country from civilians than from the constabulary, yet the constabulary wore always anxious to give every assistance he required. He complained that the Government did not support the magistrates as they ought to do. It was not until about twelve months ago that the regulations for the force were given to the magistrates. That was a step in the right direction, and he hoped the Government would go a step farther. At present, all communications about the peace of the county were made to the stipendiary magistrates, instead of to the justices of the peace. It was stated as a fact, that Government had lately, in a northern county, made an appointment of a high sheriff so objectionable, that the whole of the magistracy, and even the Lord Lieutenant, had objected, but in vain. The privileged communications of justices of the peace to the Government, relative to the police, had lately, in the case of Lord Leitrim, actually been handed over to them on which to found actions for libel, though it had ended in the signal defeat of the Government. These were circumstances not likely to increase the confidence of the justices in the conduct of the Government; and the Government would find it much more to their advantage, and the result would be far more beneficial to the country, if they would communicate with the local magistrates, instead of the stipendiaries, with reference to the peace of the counties.
  MR. BRADYthought some of the clauses of the Bill exceedingly objectionable, and such as would never be permitted to be passed in reference to England. The discussion had been entirely confined to the magistrates and constabulary, but nothing had been said about the merits of the Bill, and the poor taxpayers had been ignored altogether. Any one who had heard the discussion which had taken place might suppose that crime was rampant in Ireland, and he therefore wished to mention that, within the last month, Judge Christian stated to the grand jury of Leitrim that, taking into consideration the great distress and privations which the people had undergone within the last three years, there was no portion of Europe

  1719
  where so little crime prevailed as in Ireland. He hoped that the House would not allow the Bill to pass, and he moved, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
  COLONEL WHITEseconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Brady).
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  CAPTAIN ARCHDALLsaid, he gave the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) every credit for the honesty and earnestness of his opinions with regard to the efficiency of the constabulary, but he thought the right hon. Baronet might make it more efficient in one respect. The operations of the new Poaching Act had been beneficial in England, but from the open manner in which poaching was carried on in Ireland, he was doubtful if the police of Ireland had not received some instructions with regard to it which rendered its operation ineffective in that country. He thought that with respect to some parts of the Act, such as that which related to the sale of game, the right hon. Baronet might interfere, in order that the Act should be more efficiently carried out. He thought also that the police might be employed to see that no one should shoot without a licence.
  COLONEL VANDELEURhad always found that the police, when supported by the magistrates, acted with great determination; but when no information was given to them, of course they could not be blamed if offenders remained undiscovered. His own county was never in a more peaceable state. Very little crime remained undetected, thanks to the efficiency of the magistrates, who generally supported the police. With regard to this Bill, a very little change in the regulations of the police would do away with the necessity for it. The police, by their regulations, watch till twelve o'clock, when the public-houses were closed. If after the public-houses were closed, two persons were appointed to patrol, the necessity for this Bill would cease. It might safely be withdrawn if the Government acted on the suggestion he had made.
  MR. W. R. ORMSBY GOREconcurred in what the hon. Gentleman had said as to the police of Ireland. It had lately been the fashion to find fault with them in
  1720
  regard to the detection of crime; but as far as his own experience went, he had always found them active and efficient, often under difficult circumstances. It would be most dangerous to alter the organization of the force. They had to deal with offenders among the classes from which they themselves sprang, and if they were allowed to mix too much with the people, they would retain the prejudices of the classes to which they originally belonged. An improvement might be made in the mode in which they were armed. They had a rifle, which they were not allowed to use, and a long sword, which, when they attempted to run, got between their legs and upset them. Of course, they had to keep hold of the hilt. The consequence was, that they could not overtake any one but a cripple, or if they did, they had only one hand available for seizing him.
  MR. SULLIVANobserved, that the town which he represented (Kilkenny) did not require any additional police force, and he returned thanks to the Chief Secretary for Ireland for the manly manner in which he came forward to protect the rights and interests of that community. With regard to the police force, he must say that he could not understand why such continuous attacks were made on it. He believed that a more respectable force did not exist throughout the world. On his own part and on that of his constituents he repudiated the present Bill.
  SIR HERVEY BRUCE,in reply, said, that it was a mistake to suppose that, in introducing the Bill, he wished to attack the Irish police, for he had mentioned that, individually and collectively, they were as efficient as when the late Sir Robert Peel instituted that splendid force; but he added that, owing to some rules and regulations, they were not so well able to perform the duties of police as those of a regular army. He had not the least intention of saying anything against so fine a body of men. He must take exception to what the right hon. Baronet had stated when he asserted that he (Sir Hervey Bruce) had represented the town for which he was Member to be in so demoralized a state as to require a large additional police force. The Commissioners had asked for only three men; it was the Government who said they could not do with fewer than eleven. He knew that in past times three "Charlies" or watchmen were quite sufficient force to carry out the wishes of the Commissioners. After the statement which had been made

  1721
  by the right hon. Gentleman, he would, with the permission of the House, withdraw the Bill; but he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would lay on the table the instructions which had been issued respecting the watching of towns, so that the House might be able to ascertain what those instructions were.
  Amendment, and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill withdrawn.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (METRIC SYSTEM) BILL.— [BILL 24.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. W. EWART,in rising to move the second reading of this Bill, said, that its object was to render permissive the use of the Metric System of Weights and Measures. He would not repeat what he stated last year as to the advantage the adoption of that system would lead to in an international point of view. The Bill which, he introduced last year was based on the unanimous Report of a Committee, except only that it was, prospectively, compulsory. The present measure was permissive. He would now confine his observations to three points—namely, to the aspect of the question at the close of the debate last year, to what had occurred since respecting it, and to the measure he now proposed. Last year it was the opinion of the Government and of the House that the Bill which he had introduced (though, carried by a majority) should be withdrawn, and that a permissive measure should be brought in instead. He would next proceed to show what had occurred respecting the question in the interval between the last and the present Session. An important congress at Berlin had come to an unanimous resolution in favour of the metric system; and Sir William Armstrong, in his introductory speech at the British Association in Newcastle, had strongly recommended its adoption. A Committee of the Chambers of Commerce which met a few days ago had adopted resolutions in its favour of the metric system, on the ground both of its utility and of its adoption by the majority of civilized nations. There was a universal agreement among all the foreign witnesses who appeared before the Committee as to the advantage of the system, and it appeared that no foreign nation
  1722
  which had allowed it to be introduced, had ever allowed it to be withdrawn. Last year he had alluded to Spain, Portugal, and other foreign countries in which it had been adopted and worked well; but there was another country which in the names and characters of its weights and measures much resembled England. He meant Holland. He had therefore been anxious to know what the result of the change was there. To a communication made to the Dutch Embassy he received for answer, that "there could be but one opinion on the subject" all over Holland, and that the interminable number of weights and measures in use in different places had been superseded in favour of the metric system to the entire satisfaction of the country. He would now state why he proposed only a permissive Bill. He had done so in deference to the opinion of the House. He should have been glad to go further and make it prospectively compulsory, but it was his duty to obey the wishes of the House. The question had been frequently asked, would any persons avail themselves of a permissive system? He believed that there were many trades and professions in the country which would gladly avail themselves of the metric system. That system was not lawful at present, and the object of this Bill was to render it lawful. It would be advantageous to watchmakers, who found considerable difficulty in dealing with foreign countries in consequence of the misunderstandings which frequently arose, owing to the variation in measures in different countries, and in different parts of the same country. When orders were given under the metric system, the uniformity of measure would be so exact that every workman, however distant, would be able with ease to execute the orders which he received. Some of the most eminent engineers were of opinion that the metric system might be applied with great advantage to the construction of machinery, Among other articles of machinery, he might mention the wheels of railway carriages. The adoption of the metric system would be of great advantage in executing orders from foreign countries. A great number of chemists had expressed their sense of the benefits which they would derive from it, and a considerable body of architects had petitioned for its introduction. With regard to the coal trade, which was now extensively

  1723
  carried on with, foreign countries, the introduction of the metric ton would be of the greatest advantage. And, generally, the use of the system would facilitate and extend our trade with foreign countries. If the House should pass a permissive Bill, he believed that the system would work its way gradually into the commerce and manufactures of the country, until at last the people would become convinced that it was desirable to pass a compulsory measure. In the mean time he believed that the present step was a step in the right direction. The hon. Member moved the second reading of the Bill.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, he would second the Motion. It would at least do no harm to pass this Bill through the present stage, and would, no doubt, lead, in Committee, to the amelioration of the existing system of weights and measures, which, it could not be doubted, was extremely inconvenient and defective, either on the plan of his hon. Friend or in some other way. There could be no question that the assimilation of our measures to those prevailing in France and other countries would be of great advantage to all concerned in foreign trade. It would also, in his opinion, be of material benefit to the working classes in their small dealings with grocers and others. At present, there was no proper analogy between our weights and measures and our coinage, and consequently the working classes are the losers. For instance, twelve pence—one shilling, which was also equal to twenty-four half pence and forty-eight farthings; then sixteen ounces make one pound, and consequently, three farthings would answer to an ounce; but suppose a poor man wanted to buy half an ounce of something which cost three farthings an ounce, it was clear that there must be a loss of half a farthing on the side either of the shopkeeper or purchaser. This arose from there being no exact equivalent, whereas the French with their centimes had a great advantage over us in trifling transactions of that sort. They had a hundred centimes to a franc and five centimes to a sous, and that money division corresponded with the divisions of the weights and measures, so that there were equivalents in money to the smallest weights and measures. On that ground he thought it very desirable that we should have an assimilation between the weights and measures and the coinage in that respect. It would be a great boon to the labouring classes. A great deal had been
  1724
  said in the Committee on this subject about the objections that would be made to an alteration in the system by retail dealers and the labouring classes; but he was quite sure that if the labouring classes understood their own interests they would come to the conclusion, that it would be an especial advantage to them to have coins which would enable them to pay for the very smallest quantity of any commodity they desired to purchase. M. Michel Chevalier in his evidence before the Committee in answer to the following question, No. 620, put by the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. J. B. Smith)—
  "Do you think that if we adopt the metrical system of weights and measures, we should also adopt the decimal system of coins, and that they should be adopted simultaneously?"—said,
  "Yes. Tour present system of coinage has two imperfections. One is that it has no connection with the general system of weights and measures. Our system has the franc, which is a piece of silver weighing five grammes exactly. Your pound sterling has a complicated ratio with your pound weight. The other imperfection is that your divisions are not decimal."
  His hon. Friend's Bill did not attempt to carry out these views of simultaneously adopting the metric system and the decimal coinage; but it would not prevent that further step being taken if subsequently deemed desirable. If the metric system were found on trial to be easily understood and convenient for us, there could be no doubt that it would be adopted by vast numbers of persons, both high and low, for their own interest. The learning of weights and measures in youth was a most disagreeable pursuit. Nothing could be more intricate, perplexing, and, in fact, he might say, detestable than those tables which one had to learn in childhood, but which one usually forgot so completely when one grew up, that he did not suppose there was a single Member of the House who could repeat them. Each person learned the tables necessary for his particular trade, and carefully eschewed all the rest. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), objected to the Greek and Latin names given to the divisions of the metric system; but in Holland, when the system was introduced, the original Dutch names had been retained. The same course might be taken in this country. The French system was extremely simple, and could readily be learnt. It was said that there was no need to make any change, because when once a person was familiar with our weights

  1725
  and measures, he could calculate according to them without any difficulty. But when they considered the rapid growth of population and all the little boys at school, they must, he thought, admit that it would be a much greater benefit to the human race to adopt the new system than to adhere to the old merely because a certain number of grown up people knew the one and could not be bothered to learn the other. It could not be right to set the inconvenience of the present generation against the positive benefit which the adoption of the new system would confer on all future generations. There was another matter to which he wished to draw the attention of the President of the Board of Trade. There were, he believed, certain authenticated standards of weights and measures by which all the weights and measures of the country were to be compared and verified, but where they were deposited nobody exactly knew. It was supposed that they were bricked up in some part of this House, and that consequently nobody could get at them. Copies of these standards were distributed throughout the country, but it was a long time since they had been compared with the originals, and he understood that great injustice was done by taking inaccurate copies as tests. The magistrates held themselves bound by the Act to impose penalties for the slightest deviation of weights or measures from the country standards, and he was told that many innocent persons were improperly convicted on account of the imperfections of the tests applied by the magistrates. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give his attention to these matters. In regard to the Bill, he believed it would be advantageous as far as it went, and hoped that some day we should have a system of weights and measures and a system of coinage analogous to each other.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be read a second time."—(Mr. W. Ewart.)
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that before he made any observations on the Bill he would reply to the two questions which his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke) had addressed to him. His hon. Friend stated first that the national standard of weights and measures had been put away in some inaccessible place, and that consequently copies of the national standards had not been verified for a long time, and that, as
  1726
  these regulated the weights and measures throughout the country, without such verification there could be no assurance that these standards were correct. His hon. and learned Friend was mistaken in supposing that the national standards were bricked up in that building; the national standards were deposited in the Exchequer, and there were only certain copies of them immured here. He might state to his hon. and learned Friend that the question of the re-verification had been considered by the Government, and the Standard Commission had been revived by the Treasury, and it was very probable that a verification would shortly take place under their authority. The subject was under consideration, and he had no doubt that what was necessary would be done under the sanction of this Commission. "With respect to the present system of administering the law of weights and measures, it was not for the Board of Trade to comment on the proceedings of the magistrates in this respect. No one could for a moment doubt the expediency of having a system of penalties to prevent the public being defrauded by false weights and measures. No doubt such penalties might be carried into effect with undue severity, but he had not heard of any such case, and, if he had, he did not think it could be considered one of the functions of the Board of Trade to interfere.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, that what he had intended to state was that, according to the Act of Parliament, it was imperative on the magistrates to inflict penalties.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that at any rate the Inspectors had no power to impose penalties. Their duty was to see that the weights and measures properly corresponded with the country standards, and were themselves liable to penalties if they neglected their duties, and it must be presumed that when the magistrates convicted fraud had been proved. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke) had argued that there should be a decimalization of the coinage in correspondence with a decimalization of weights and measures, and that means should be adopted for securing the working classes against the improper charges now put upon them through the want of convenient relations between money and weights and measures. He knew there was a great deal of truth in what the hon. and learned Member said; but really the question of decimalization

  1727
  had nothing whatever to do with the Bill. This was a measure for changing the unit. Our existing weights and measures might be decimalized. "When the present standards were legalized there was a clause introduced into the Act, which enabled secondary weights and measures to be used, simply by an Order in Council. They might then, in fact, have a decimal division of the existing weights and measures. Indeed, he believed, without any Order in Council, the use of decimal divisions by individuals would not be prevented by any statute of which he was aware. With regard to the coinage, of course that was a question for the Executive. There were no doubt great facilities of decimalizing the British coinage. The question before the House, however, was simply whether there should be a permissive use of a new standard. At present we had two standards, namely, the English yard, and the avoirdupois pound, from which all our weights and measures were derived. If this Bill were passed we should have a third one—namely, a metre, from which other weights and measures would be derived. We should then have three national standards— the English yard, the avoirdupois pound, and the metre. The metre was the 10-millionth part of the quadrant of the globe from the equator to the pole, and was supposed to be represented by a certain bar of platinum, in the possession of the Royal Society, and which, it was stated in the Bill, had been originally constructed in consequence of the Resolution passed in the House of Commons on the 15th of March, 1816. He found a Resolution stating that a comparison should be made with the French metre; but all that part of it which it was said regarded the Royal Society and this bar of platinum he could not find. But let them assume that the Royal Society had this bar of platinum in their possession. His hon. Friend proposed to put upon the Board of Trade an important duty—namely, to furnish at least 700 different places throughout the United Kingdom with sets of weights and measures according to his new standard. Supposing each set to consist of twenty separate weights and measures, it was obvious that the duty of the Board of Trade would be a very serious and expensive one; and the Board of Trade was to take this bar of platinum as their basis from which they were to derive all the new weights and measures. This was a
  1728
  duty which, the Board would find very great difficulty in discharging, and would be really going far beyond what was done in regard to our present weights and measures. All that was done now was to provide the three capitals of the United Kingdom, London, Edinburgh, and Dublin, with copies of the standard weights and measures; but he believed that all other localities provided those articles at their own expense. He did not think it fair, then, to call upon the State to perform the duties to which he had referred. This, however, might be said to be an objection that could better be taken in Committee. That might be true, but he felt it was necessary to state his objections at the outset, because the object of his hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. W. Ewart) might to a great extent be obtained without calling on the Board of Trade to undertake so difficult and costly a labour. What was stated last year was this—that at present any contract made under the metric system was not legally binding. If a man, for instance, agreed to purchase a metre of cloth from a Frenchman, he might escape from his engagement, inasmuch as his bargain being made under the metric system, he could not be compelled by our law to fulfil his contract. That, he (Mr. M. Gibson) believed was the state of the law. But it would be easy to make a contract, on the metrical system, legally valid. Any person who chose might then make contracts on the metrical system, and could enforce the contracts by law, supposing that the other contracting party was desirous of escaping from them. Well; but he might be asked by his hon. Friend, supposing the goods to be delivered, where was the standard by which the correct measure could be ascertained? Now, nothing could be easier than to get rid of that difficulty; because, if in the clause of an Act there was simply a recognition of the relations existing between English weights and measures and metres, a table of equivalents, they would at once see, by using our own standards, whether the correct metrical measure had been given. There would then be no necessity for having a third standard in this country. That was the opinion of the Astronomer Royal, expressed in a paper he had put into his (Mr. M. Gibson's) hand, and which by some omission did not appear in the Appendix of the Report of the Weights and Measures Committee. With the Astronomer's per-

  1729
  mission, he would move to have it laid before the House. The opinion of that gentleman was this:—"If it appears that an action at law arises upon contracts made in respect to foreign measures, I think that the safe and proper course to take is to ascertain the relations between the British and foreign standards, and that the Legislature should recognize those relations." Now, it appeared to him (Mr. Milner Gibson), that the principle indicated by the Astronomer Royal might be easily acted upon without adopting a new national standard, and that, in this way, the evil complained of in regard to the use of the metrical system in our foreign trade, might be remedied without much trouble. Last Session his hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries proposed a compulsory measure, which he (Mr. Milner Gibson) objected to. He stated then that to a permissive Bill, or to giving the powers of making a legal contract upon the metrical system, he would not object. He further stated that, so far as decimalization was concerned, he saw no reason why people should not use that system if they thought fit. But he objected to compulsory powers in enforcing upon the whole community the necessity, under pains and penalties, of adopting a new system of weights and measures. He was, however, put in a minority, and the House by a majority called for a compulsory measure. His hon. Friend now came forward with a permissive measure on the subject, and he (Mr. Milner Gibson) Should not oppose the second reading. But, at the same time, he wished to guard himself carefully against being supposed to agree to all the clauses of the Bill. To the principle of permission to legally use the metrical system, he should not object. But he declined to say, as at present advised, that it would be right to commence a system which the hon. Gentleman proposed, of establishing in this country a new standard of weights and measures from which 700 sets were to be made and distributed throughout the United Kingdom. He hoped that his hon. Friend would be satisfied if he obtained the legal use of the metrical system without imposing upon the Executive a very onerous and useless task—for he doubted whether the distribution of a new set of weights and measures would lead to the voluntary use of them by retail traders. He thought the only persons likely to desire to use the metric system, in this country would be
  1730
  those who were engaged in the foreign trade, and they would have the full use of it if all contracts made in them could be enforced by law: he hoped that would suit the views of his hon. Friend. Guarding himself as he had done against the provisions of the Bill, he should not oppose its second reading.
  MR. HENLEY: The statement we have just heard from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade is in some degree satisfactory; but I think it is eminently not so on one point. So far as the right hon. Gentleman proposes to sanction by law contracts made in any particular measure in which the relative proportions of our standard could be obtained, I agree with him; because to do so is merely preventing what amounted to fraud, and to prevent dishonest persons from getting rid of their just obligations. The right hon. Gentleman had no doubt guarded himself that the principle of the Bill must be restricted to this one point; but I must remind the House that the Bill proposes to set up two modes of buying and selling in all the retail shops throughout the country, which must not only present great difficulties to the humbler classes—when A. sells by the metre and B, by the pound—and subject them to be cheated and constantly defrauded from their not being able to understand readily and calculate with accuracy and facility the difference between the two systems. The shopkeepers would, no doubt, take care to understand the two systems to their own advantage, and therefore I cannot conceive a more objectionable proposition than that now before the House. I do not say whether the old English yard and the avoirdupois weight are better than the metre, but I contend that the use of both —which is the object aimed at by the present Bill—will be most disastrous in its operation to the working classes. If such a change is necessary it ought to be taken up and carried on the responsibility of the Government, and not by a private Member; for I object to a great measure whereby any man who chooses to become a rogue, and is clever enough to cheat another, being handled in this manner. It is perfectly true, as the hon. and learned Member for Southwark has said, that there is no analogy between our weights and measures and our coinage; but the same objection will remain if we carry this Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman says with great truth, that if this Bill is carried, it

  1731
  will compel us to alter our coinage. But I think we ought not to touch one without altering the other at the same time, and that then it should be done by the Government, or else we shall throw everything into confusion, and lay every person open to be cheated for the next eight or ten years. All the advantage I can see likely to result from the present proposed legislation is, that it will save little boys from learning what was distasteful to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Southwark when he was—as I suppose he was at some time—young. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, has referred to the great labour and trouble and expense that will be incurred in sending 700 copies of the new standard all over the country; but that is nothing like what will be required—it will be but a drop in the ocean; because besides sending a copy to each county and corporate town, it must be again multiplied for the use of the various benches of magistrates in order to do justice between the parties when informations are laid for using defective weights and measures. A great deal has been said about a national standard. The one proposed last year was, as I understand it, only a copy; but we are now to have something very philosophic—namely, the 10-millionth part of some portion of the world, to be verified by a platinum bar placed somewhere, but where the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade does not exactly know. Last year we were to go to Paris to verify our standards; and it would be very instructive and no less satisfactory to know how long it was since the platinum bar and the something that is built into a wall in this building were compared and verified, because the hon. and learned Member for Southwark says great inconvenience now arises from the want of a proper verification of our standards of weights and measures. They are at present sent up to the Exchequer to be properly stamped, and we should not get out of the difficulty if we were to adopt the new system. It is a subject so great, whether for good or evil, that I think it ought only to be touched by the Government, and not dealt with in this bit-by-bit manner; but in consequence of the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, I shall not propose any Motion for the rejection of the Bill.
  MR. ADDERLEY: It is certainly very easy to turn this subject into ridicule or
  1732
  to treat it as chimerical, and it is very difficult under such treatment to get the House to appreciate its value. So much has to-day been said one way and the other that the Bill makes unusually little progress, owing to conflicting statements. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade says, the Government is required to do so much under the Bill that they cannot possibly undertake it, and that it contains a great deal which must be left to private individuals. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire, however, says the reverse, and that from the importance of the measure it ought to be taken up by the Government, and private individuals should have nothing to do with it. The object of the Bill is at all events an important one, and nothing but its difficulty can be seriously alleged against it. Of so immense an advantage must it be abstractedly to commerce to have an uniform system of weights and measures, that it is needless to argue the question. If, however, it is of so much importance to any country's trade, how much more so is it to international commerce? And it is no exaggeration to say that this country, dealing with weights and measures which are unintelligible abroad, is placed in the most disadvantageous position—a disadvantage so serious that it is not easy to calculate the tax which it represents on our commerce. But beyond the consideration of uniformity, a simple system in the place of our present complicated one would be of immense importance to trade, as well as to science and philosophy. Every one having any extensive calculations to make wishes to have a more simple system than the one now in use; the metric system is unrivalled for its simplicity; and the only objection raised to it is the difficulty of its introduction. If this is impossible, it is useless to waste more time about it. But we must first ascertain that it is so, before we forego what is so desirable. It is irrational to try to put down the measure by ridicule, and it is neither sensible, rational, or patriotic to impede its discussion by merely laughing at its terms and novelty. There is nothing, perhaps, more easy in England than to turn a new nomenclature into ridicule. Englishmen, beyond all men, like old terms and old habits; but I hope we are not to be diverted by such ridicule from discussing a practical subject like this. It does not seem to me that the sound of the word "metric" can be

  1733
  absurd to anyone but a fool who had never heard it before; no. more so than a "yard" to a man who had never heard of a yard before. To an ignorant savage the idea of basing a measure on the 10-mil-lionth part of a quadrant of the globe from the equator to the pole would not seem more funny than that of basing the English yard on the length of the second pendulum which depends on the force of gravitation. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down tried to turn the subject into ridicule by asking where the standard was to be kept, and whether we were to go to Paris for it. [Mr. HENLEY: That was the proposition last year.] It might be laughable to go every year to Paris to look at their standard, but not so to go there once for a copy, and so provide that a like platinum bar should be kept in London. The right hon. Gentleman opposite complains that there are now two standards—s s the yard and the pound: the one being the standard of weight, and the other of length.
  MR. MILNER GIBSON: They are both derived from the same principle. If you adopt the metric principle you will have a third.
  MR. ADDERLEY: That is a great argument in favour of the third system, the great recommendation of which is its simplicity. It is the chief merit of the metric system that it has only one unit for lineal measure, area, weight, and capacity. It is said that, pending the introduction of the new standard, two standards will expose the poor to being cheated. I should like to know now how many different denominations there are in use in this country of weight and measure. In some trades there are not only two but some twenty or thirty different meanings to the same terms of weight and measure. I believe the bushel has as many as twenty or thirty meanings in my own county. If so, you need not be so much afraid of adding another, which if it become the standard will reduce all to one. To get rid of the old system it would be fortunate if it were possible to pass a short Act to provide that the metrical system should be introduced, and that no contracts made under any other system should be legal. That is the way in which the autocratic Governments of the Continent have dealt with it. Napoleon so established it in France, and almost all the Governments of Europe have adopted it. In this respect they have had a great advantage over England. Their
  1734
  commerce has a language understood everywhere, and of great simplicity—an advantage over this country which nothing but inferior vigour in commerce has enabled her to compete with. But since we cannot compel its adoption here, we must be content with facilitating what I may call its self-introduction. There are many ways in which this may be done. To some extent, it may be done by Orders in Council. It may be prepared for by the Education Committee of the Privy Council introducing the tables into all schools under their control, and it may be done by the Government adopting it in their own departments, just as most of our large mercantile firms are beginning to use it in their establishments. But there can be no doubt that some legislation is wanted to introduce the metrical measures on a par with others, and to describe them. The provisions of the existing Act left it necessary, and hence the importance of passing such a Bill as the present, with its valuable clauses and schedules.
  MR. HENLEY,in explanation, said, that what he had stated with respect to the measure was, that if it was taken up at all it ought to be taken up not by a private Member, but by the Government.
  MR. THOMSON HANKEYagreed with the right hon. Gentleman that the question was one which the Government ought to take up. But there was no hope of the Government doing so, as they had always thrown cold water upon it. After the division on the subject last year, they had a right to expect that some measure would have been introduced by the Government. The difficulties pointed out were chiefly of detail, and might be considered in Committee. He could not see the use of the President of the Board of Trade sanctioning the second reading when he declared himself opposed to almost every detail of the Bill. Under such circumstances, it was but wasting time to carry the measure further. As to introducing a third standard, he begged to remind the House that, though they had at present legally only two, yet, practically, they had several hundreds. He had always advocated the alteration of a standard which was admitted to be radically bad, and the adoption of a standard which most countries in Europe had deemed to be a better one. They ought, therefore, to make a similar alteration in this country, for the interests of both rich and poor would be promoted by it. It had been said that the Bill would

  1735
  be inoperative, and that the object might be carried out in a better manner by some other measure. If that were so, let another measure be introduced, and then the two Bills could be considered together. But he had no doubt that, although this Bill was permissive only, when the country once got used to the system, it would soon be made compulsory.
  MR. WALTERsaid, he hoped that his right hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley),'would not think him guilty of presumption if he told him that he intended to divide the House on this question after his right hon. Friend had expressed his willingness to refrain from doing so; but he felt so strongly about the inexpediency of this Bill, as well as about the impropriety of the shape in which it at present stood, that he conceived it to be his duty to take a decided course at the outset. He objected to the Bill partly because it was a permissive one, although he confessed that he should also have objected to it still more if it had been compulsory; because he thought that the use of weights and measures in this country, as well as the use of coins, ought to be subject, not to permissive, but to compulsory regulation. Nothing, he believed, could tend more to throw the trade and commerce of the kingdom into confusion than the adoption of a permissive scale of weights and measures. They might just as well try to gratify the whims and fancies of some people who would like to introduce the French coinage into this country. Suppose they had a permissive Bill to allow certain people to use French coins in England. Some persons thought that Napoleons and francs would be better than pounds sterling and shillings; and, according to the principle of this Bill, they ought to have their views carried out. Yet, they knew pretty well what reception a permissive Bill to that effect would meet with in that House. Partly on that ground, then, he opposed the present Bill; but he acknowledged that he had a still stronger objection to it. It was a revolutionary measure; it tampered with our whole system of weights and measures; and it introduced a foreign nomenclature, which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley) thought so very light and indifferent an affair. They would not find it so treated or regarded in the country. The labouring man who wanted to buy a glass of beer would be obliged to ask, not for a pint or a half-
  1736
  pint, but for a "litre" or a "decalitre," or some such barbarous term, of quantity. Then, again, as regarded square measure, our yards, roods, &c, were to be superseded by new-fangled terms, all ending in "are," which would be taken to be nothing but a misprint of the word "acre" or "area." He believed it was impossible to exaggerate the amount of annoyance that would be caused, or the disrespectful remarks that would be made throughout the country, if they attempted to force a system of that sort down the throats of the people. But if they adopted the system at all it must be made compulsory, for in a matter of that kind a permissive measure was out of the question. With respect to a system of decimalization, if they wanted to decimalize their coinage, they had only to provide that 200 pence should, go to the pound sterling, instead of 240, and it would be decimalized to all practical purposes. And why was that not done, except because it would raise the value of our penny by one-sixth, thereby altering the whole character of those infinitely numerous transactions of the value of one penny? That was felt to be so great a practical difficulty that they could not decimalize their coinage, although the thing was most simple, speaking arithmetically. But it was a very much more complicated matter to adopt a metrical system of weights and measures. They had now got an excellent standard of measurement in the yard. "What objection was there to that? Was it too long or too short? If they found it a difficult thing to decimalize the yard by reducing it into inches, let them, if they preferred it, or thought it more philosophical, make the foot consist of ten inches instead of twelve. He did not recommend that, although it would be one way of decimalizing the yard. But why should they not keep their own weights and measures? Why were they, because a certain number of Frenchmen, animated by what he did not hesitate to call a spirit of fantastical pedantry, which led them to turn everything upside down—why, merely because a certain number of French savans chose to adopt as their unit of measurement the 10-millionth part of the quadrant of the earth's meridian, were we in this country bound to imitate them? He maintained that the metre of 39.371 inches was not nearly so handy a unit as our yard, and he would take the opinion of any carpenter whether, as a mere matter of convenience, the English yard had

  1737
  not the advantage over the French metre. At all events, he thought they ought not to abolish the name of the yard. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley), what did Professor De Morgan— a good authority, he supposed, and not a fool merely because he did not agree with the French system—what he did say of the principle on which the French metre was constructed? "Why, that they might as well think of determining their unit of measurement by the distance from the earth to the moon as to adopt the principle of the arc of the earth's meridian, and that there was no real philosophy in it. Reverting to the case of the coinage, one gentleman who was examined before the Select Committee on that subject, spoke of the introduction of the florin as a great step towards the decimalization of our currency. Now, he ventured to say, that in the history of this country there had never been a more useless and absurd coin, invented than the florin. What advantage was there to any human being in carrying two shillings in one piece instead of carrying them separately? There was some use in the half-crown, because it expressed three coins in one. The florin seemed as if intended only to afford a mean mode of cheating some unhappy schoolboy of his full allowance or gratuity. He was at the Mint some time ago, when Professor Graham, the Master of that Establishment, told him that they had to coin a great number of extra sixpences to make up the half-crown since the adoption of the florin. Children and other people would not be cheated by having a florin given to them where before they used to get half-a-crown, and surely it was much better that the half-crown should be in one coin instead of in two? He mentioned that to show the absurdity of carrying a preconceived idea to fantastic lengths. He said, then, that if they could improve their weights and measures, let it by all means be done; but they should take care to retain their own nomenclature. The present Bill had all the faults of the Bill of last Session, with some aggravation, and in order to test the feeling of the House, he must press this question to a division. He begged, therefore, to move that the Bill be read the second time that day six months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Walter.)
  MR. J. B. SMITHobserved, that one of the articles of Magna Charta provided that there should be but one weight and one measure within this realm, but there were scarcely two counties in England where articles were sold by the same measure. There were nine different sorts of stones, and if a man sent a bullock up to London, it was nearly double the country weight, the stone in one case being 8 lb. and in the other 14 lb. So far from this Bill being a revolutionary measure, we were turning back to our original system, in order that the people might not be cheated in their transactions. The hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter) was alarmed at a foreign nomenclature, and there could be no objection to the use of English terms if they were more feasible than French; but in the case of Holland, where the same prejudice against the French nomenclature had existed, great practical difficulty had been experienced from an adherence to Dutch terms. Great inconvenience would result from the adoption of a standard of our own, whereas great advantage would be gained by introducing the system followed in the other countries of Europe, He cordially supported this Bill, and regretted to find hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side, from whom he had expected more enlightened views, opposing the measure.
  COLONEL STKESthought it a disgrace to us, as a civilized country, that it should be found lagging behind the rest of the civilized world in this matter. Even the Government of Chili had recently adopted the metrical system. If hon. Gentlemen had undergone as much fatigue, trouble, perplexity, and disgust as he had done in reducing foreign weights and measures into our own, for equivalents in scientific researches, they would think this no light or unimportant matter. He was astonished to hear the hon. Member for Berkshire say it was impossible to introduce a decimal coinage because it would raise the penny one-sixth over its present value. Why, if the penny were so raised in value the labouring man would get one-sixth more of the article he required in exchange for it. [Mr. WALTER: Take the case of the penny stamp.] With regard to a table of equivalents, which had been talked of by the President of the Board of Trade, he did not see the practical use of it. What farmer would understand it? and what farmer would make bargains in

  1739
  weights and measures of which, he had not the standards at hand to verify quantities? It was the duty of the Government to bring in a measure on this subject, and if they did so, the intelligence of the country would, in a few years, gradually come over to it.
  MR. BUXTONsaid, he thought the President of the Board of Trade should either divide against this Bill, if he disapproved its principle, or, if he did not so divide, he should admit the thing wholly, and strenuously assist in its adoption. Nothing could cause greater confusion than any mere half-and-half changes in such a matter. The President of the Board of Trade should also put himself in communication with the Vice President of the Committee of Privy Council, in order that instruction in the metrical system might be given in the schools supported by the State, because, to make it work, the people should be broken into it from their infancy.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTinquired if it was desirable to introduce a permissive Bill, and if a permissive Bill were passed, would the country accept it? The small traders would decidedly not accept it, nor would the agriculturists in the rural districts. The large traders might adopt it, but it certainly would not become a general measure. If such a measure as this were brought in at all, it should be brought in by the Government; and if the proposed system were adopted it would be necessary for every shopkeeper to go to school again.
  MR. BAINESsaid, the hon. and gallant Gentleman must have but a poor idea of the intelligence of the English people when he said they would be unable to understand an improvement which was now being adopted by every civilized nation of the world. He had lately seen it in operation in Sardinia and Tuscany, and he held in his hands little publications issued by the Italian Government containing a popular explanation of the Metric system. Even Spain and Portugal had recently adopted it. The other day an advertisement appeared in The Times inviting tenders for 80,000 pieces of the weights and measures of the new metrical system for the Kingdom of Spain. In Switzerland the utmost confusion had prevailed from the varying systems of the different cantons until a uniform plan was adopted. The standard metre of Switzerland was kept in the stonework of the Bridge at Basle; and there was a similar standard kept in the
  1740
  Palazzo Vecchio, at Florence. Did hon. Gentlemen think so lightly of the intelligence of their own country as to believe that they would not be able to appreciate and understand one of the most striking and important of modern improvements? As to the difficulties of a new nomenclature, we had now fifty-six different names for our weights and measures; whereas the Bill would substitute only four, with easily intelligible prefixes to signify their different decimal parts. He regretted the course taken by the hon. Member for Berkshire, whose admirable talents he should have been exceedingly glad to see arrayed on the side of that improvement; but he trusted that the hon. Gentleman would live to see his error in this matter, and to rejoice that his present Amendment had been, as it was to be hoped it would be, rejected.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 90; Noes 52: Majority 38.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 2°, and committed for Wednesday, 4th May.

CATTLE DISEASES PREVENTION BILL— [BILL 27.] CATTLE, &c., IMPORTATION BILL— [BILL 28.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the day for the Second Reading of the Cattle Diseases Prevention Bill, read.
  MR. H. A. BRUCE,in rising to move the second reading of the Cattle Diseases Prevention Bill, and of the second Bill, the Cattle, &c., Importation Bill, said, that the subject had been considered with the care and attention which were due to its importance. The question was an extremely difficult one to deal with, because it was no easy matter to interfere effectually to prevent the spread of infectious diseases among cattle, without at the same time interfering unduly with the operations of the agriculturist. There were already four Acts relating to this subject in existence, and instead of incumbering the statute-book by adding to their number it was proposed to repeal those Acts and pass two others in their place, at once consolidating and amending the present law. As far as could be ascertained, there were in the United Kingdom nearly 8,000,000 head

  1741
  of cattle, thus distributed:—In England there were something over 3,500,000; in Ireland something over 3,250,000; and in Scotland about 1,000,000. The total number of sheep was about 40,000,000; and the total number of pigs 4,300,000. The aggregate value of that property, reckoning the cattle as worth £10 a head, the sheep at £1 each, and the pigs also at £1, was no less than £121,800,000. These figures indicated the magnitude and importance of the interests involved in this question. Disease among cattle had broken out with peculiar virulence during the last twenty years. In 1844 the first insurance office for cattle was founded, when it was estimated that premiums of from 3 to 3½ per cent would cover the risks of loss. Several insurance offices were started; but although the premiums were increased from 3 gradually up to 7 per cent, and although after a time the insurance offices refused to admit Irish cattle as being more afflicted with disease than other cattle, the largest offices came to a stand. In 1861, Mr. M'Minn (Superintendent for Scotland of the Agricultural Cattle Insurance Company, one of the most important of these establishments), published statistical tables which showed that in the six years from 1855 to 1860 inclusive the average annual mortality among 30,000 cattle insured was 1,474, or nearly 5 per cent, their average value being taken at £11 9s. 8d. a head. That was in Scotland. Applying these figures to the United Kingdom, the loss from disease in six years would be 2,225,000 head, or 375,000 head a year. The total value of the loss for the six years was £26,000,000, or £4,320,000 per annum. The annual death rate for sheep was estimated at 4 per cent, or in value £1,600,000 a year. In regard to pigs, the estimated loss in Ireland was 10 per cent; in England and Scotland it was much less; the total value of the loss of pigs in the United Kingdom averaging £1,200,000 a year. The aggregate annual value of the cattle, sheep, and pigs, lost by disease in the United Kingdom was, therefore, £6,120,000. The most fatal of those diseases was pleuro-pneumonia, from which, at least, half of the cattle died. In 1848 the annual report of the Agricultural Insurance Company stated, that in some districts thousands were carried off by this disease. So great, indeed, were its ravages, that nearly three-fourths of the losses for which claims were made on the Company, were the results
  1742
  of that incurable malady. It appeared to be generally admitted that at least one-half of the cattle died of this disease. With respect to the causes of this disease, doctors differed among themselves. Some said it was contagious, others that it was not contagious, but propagated as an epidemic. It was not for him to decide, but it seemed to him that the preponderance of argument was in favour of its being contagious. It might also occasionally arise spontaneously in some districts; but facts, he thought, proved that it was contagious. This disease, wherever it arose, was no doubt propagated by the transmission of cattle by ship from foreign countries. They were often driven a considerable way to the port of embarkation, huddled into ships, taken across the seas, exposed to great heat and suffering on board ship; they were taken ashore, put into trucks in which cattle had recently travelled infected with the same disease; and thus, both on shipboard and in the trucks, at fairs and other places of sale, the disease was necessarily propagated. It, therefore, seemed necessary to consider what provisions could be made to diminish the propagation of the disease from these causes. This course was taken when two years ago a fatal disease became rife among sheep, and much alarm was excited. He need not go into details as to other diseases—the foot and mouth disease—the scab in sheep, and measles in pigs. He had stated the number of deaths arising from disease; but that did not represent the whole extent of the mischief. There was another point of great social importance connected with this subject, and that was the question of meat. Within the last few years the price of beef and mutton had very considerably increased. Whether that was owing in any considerable extent to the amount of disease which prevailed among cattle, or whether it arose from the greater demand for butcher's meat in consequence of the increasing prosperity and wealth of the people, he could not undertake to decide. Probably the rise in price was attributable to both causes. But whatever the cause, there could be no doubt that an enormous mass of diseased meat, in various stages of disease, was annually sold. What the precise quantity was it would, of course, be difficult to estimate. Professor Gamgee estimated it at one-fifth of the whole. There was no conclusive evidence on the subject, although there was ample evidence that the quantities were

  1743
  very large, not only of meat killed while cattle were diseased, but of cattle which had died without the aid of the butcher. He took the case where the figures were beyond dispute. The deaths in dairies were most numerous. Professor Gamgee, who had turned his attention specially to the subject, had collected some interesting statistics from Edinburgh and Dublin, which he had arranged in a paper he had published on the subject. With respect to Edinburgh, Professor Gamgee gave Returns from 88 dairies for the year ending 1862. Out of 1,839 cows kept 1,075 were sold diseased, of which 791 were sold to butchers and 284 to be consumed by pigs. In nine dairies in Dublin, on an average of 20 years, out of 315 cows 161 were sold diseased. In Dublin it wag observable that cows being turned out to grass the greater part of the year were healthier than in the great towns. The loss in London, Manchester, &c., was equally great. These diseased cows were sold in Dublin fairs at from £2 to £5 each. In London and Edinburgh, where the facilities for sale were greater, at from £10 to £20. In London the seizures of diseased meat were very large, representing probably but a small part of those killed in a diseased state. He would on this subject read to the House an extract from Professor Gamgee's report. He says—
  "In London I have seen butchers in private slaughter-houses dress extremely diseased carcasses and 'polish' the meat. This filthy practice consists in killing a good fat ox at the same time that a number of lean and diseased animals are being killed. Boiling water is at hand, and when the lean animals have been skinned their flesh is rubbed over with fat from the healthy ox, and hot cloths are used to keep the fat warm and to distribute it over the carcass, that it may acquire an artificial gloss and an appearance of not being totally deprived of fat. In Edinburgh I have seen sickly lambs without a particle of fat upon them dressed up with the fat of healthy sheep much in the same way. From the private slaughter-houses in London I have known even the diseased organs themselves sent to the sausage-maker. In company with another member of my profession, I have seen a carcass dressed and portions of it prepared for sale as sausage meat and otherwise, although thoracic disease had gone to such an extent that gallons of fetid fluid were removed from the pleural sacs and that large abscesses existed in the lungs."
  In Edinburgh there were between 100 and 200 diseased cattle sold weekly in the meat market; and as to Dublin, he would read an extract from The Times, dated December 17, 1862:
  "The Royal Dublin Society met on Saturday
  1744
  evening to hear a lecture from Professor Gamgee on disease and mortality among cattle. When he had concluded, Mr. Ganley, salesmaster, made an extraordinary statement. He said, that unless some means were devised to give the farmer some compensation for diseased cattle, it was impossible to prevent him from selling them, or the butcher from killing and selling them. Unless some society were formed to have diseased meat paid for, it would be killed and eaten. There was no use in mincing the matter, every one of the salesmen sold diseased cattle. The farmer could not otherwise pay his rent. The disease is so prevalent that he could not live were he to submit his cattle to destruction."
  Then came the question, Did the consumption of this diseased meat lead to disease in the human frame? On this point no very decisive evidence could be quoted. Of course, disease existed in very different proportions. To many, in most cases, it probably did no positive harm. The heat and process of cooking purified the vitiated meat, and what Mr. Simon called "the strong disinfectant chymistry of digestion" deprived it of much of its danger. Still, the positive existence of disease communicated by diseased meat was very strong. He would read one or two extracts bearing on this point—
  "Professor Maclagan, of the University of Edinburgh, stated at a public meeting held in Edinburgh on the 29th of January, 1862, that in his practice, both as a physician and a toxicologist, he had met with instances in which several persons had been attacked simultaneously with irritant symptoms after having in common partaken of meat which on being examined was found to contain no poison, nor to be in that state of putrescence which, as is well known, occasionally confers upon animal matters actively poisonous properties."
  Dr. Alfred S. Taylor, F.R.S., in a letter of the 12th of January, 1863, said—
  "As a general principle, I think diseased meat noxious and unfit for human food."
  He, moreover, adds—
  "In the course of my practice I have met with several cases of poisoning which appeared to be attributable to diseased or decomposed meat—more frequently the latter. I can at present recall to my recollection only two fatal cases—one from diseased mutton, the sheep having had the staggers, and one from German sausages. Animal food has been frequently sent to me with a view to the detection of poison, the persons sending it having the impression that from the vomiting and purging produced poison must have been mixed with it. No poison has, however, been found to justify this suspicion."
  Dr. Letheby stated—
  "My opinion of the injurious effects of diseased meat on the health of those who make use of it is very decided. I have seen so much mischief from it, that I do not hesitate for one moment to say that some legislative measure is most press-

  1745
  ingly wanted to prevent, not only the traffic in diseased meat, but also to prevent the slaughtering of diseased animals. Such regulations are now in operation everywhere on the Continent, and they are much needed here. In the City markets alone my officers seize from one to two tons of diseased meat every week. Last year we seized 110,046 lb. of meat, of which 78,697 lb. were diseased, and 13,944 lb. from animals that had died. We often pursue the offenders into a court of justice, and have them fined or imprisoned; but I feel that the mischief should be stopped before it reaches the markets. Officers are wanted to examine the cattle before they are slaughtered. As to the effects of such meat on the human subject, I have seen many cases of illness from it. One of these is sufficiently important to bring under your notice. In the month of November, 1860, a part of a diseased cow was bought in Newgate Market. It came from one of the cow-houses in London. It was bought by a sausage-maker of Kingsland, and, as is commonly the case with very bad meat, it was made up into sausages. Sixty-six persons partook of the sausages, and sixty-four of them were made very ill. They were purged, became sick, giddy, and the vital powers were seriously prostrated, and they lay in many cases for hours in a state of collapse, like people with cholera. One man died, and I was requested by the coroner to inquire into the matter. I obtained some of the sausages, thinking that a mineral poison might be present, but I could discover none; and the whole history of the case showed that it was diseased meat which had done the work. Again, Dr. Livingstone tells us that whenever the natives of Africa eat the flesh of an animal that has died from pleuro-pneumonia, no matter how the flesh is cooked, they suffer from carbuncle. Now, it is a very remarkable fact that boils and carbuncles have been most prevalent in this country for several years past. The Registrar General for Scotland has drawn attention to this fact."
  And here he was bound to say that the corporation of London had been signalized by its exertions in endeavouring to prevent the sale of diseased meat within their jurisdiction. And Professor Gamgee said—
  "My own observation confirm the opinions of the eminent authorities just quoted. I have known in many instances where meat supplied to students in lodging-houses in this city has led to vomiting, purging, and severe colic. In the majority of instances such meat was cooked in the form of a beefsteak. Three of my own students were affected simultaneously one day in December last. Within a couple of hours after dinner they experienced colicky pains, purging, vomiting, and these symtoms lasted several hours. Bread, potatoes, and water, were the only other materials they had partaken of at dinner. On another occasion two were affected, but did not attribute the injury to the steak until the next day, when the servant ate what had been left of the meat, and suffered severely."
  He thought he had shown that, although it was possible to consume a large portion of diseased meat without any positive harm arising, nevertheless it was equally true that the consumption of meat in an im-
  1746
  proper state was calculated seriously to affect the health of the consumers. But whether all diseased meat was or was not of a poisonous character, there could be hardly a doubt of the fact that such food was not of a nutritious character. This was an evil which did not tell so much upon the rich, who could take care of themselves, as upon those who depended for their support upon the maintenance of their physical strength. When he had the honour of introducing the Bakehouse Bill of last year, he had brought forward facts showing that there was a vast quantity of bread baked containing matters which were not of a nutritious character. Considering then, that in the two important articles of consumption, bread and meat, there were large quantities consumed which were not only not nutritious but positively dangerous to health, he thought the House would not require further evidence to justify an earnest inquiry into the subject. It was now his duty to inform the Committee what had been the course of the Legislature upon this subject. The importation of cattle commenced in 1842, and he thought there could be no doubt a good deal of disease might be traced to the importation of diseased cattle. At this moment, however, he believed that the foreign cattle that arrived at our ports daily were apparently in a better state than some of those which arrived from distant parts of the United Kingdom; and there was a greater necessity for guarding against the introduction of diseased cattle from Ireland and Scotland than from foreign countries. It so happened, however, that legislation had provided the means for checking the importation of diseased cattle from foreign sources, but not from parts of the United Kingdom. The existing Acts regulating this subject were the 11 & 12 Vict. c. 105, commonly called the "Cattle Diseases Prevention Act," and the Customs Consolidation Act, 1853 (16 &c. 17 Vict. c. 107, s. 44.) The 11 & 12 Vict. c. 105, by its preamble, authorized the issue of Orders in Council for preventing or regulating the importation of animals from parts beyond the seas where infectious or contagious diseases prevail. The expression "parts beyond the seas" had been held to refer to foreign countries, and therefore we had no power to interfere with cattle imported from Scotland or Ireland, or from any ports in England. The only change proposed to be made by the present Bill was

  1747
  to authorize the issue of general regulations with respect to the importation of cattle, whether from parts beyond the seas, or from one part of the United Kingdom to the other. The Act was strictly confined to the importation of live animals. The 16 & 17 Vict. c. 107, s. 44, included
  "Infected cattle, sheep or other animals, and hides, skins, horns, and hoofs, or any other part of cattle or other animals which Her Majesty may by Order in Council prohibit, in order to prevent any contagious distemper."
  The two Acts taken together would appear large enough to enable Her Majesty in Council to make any restrictions whatever with respect to animals or parts of animals. It had, however, been considered that "Order in Council" meant an Order in Council passed not under the Customs Act, but under the 11 & 12 Vict. c. 105, and did not extend to cattle imported from one part of the United Kingdom to the other. The object of this Bill, therefore, was to make it clear that Her Majesty might regulate the importation of cattle from one part of the United Kingdom to the other, as well as from foreign parts. Provision was also made for the purification of ships bringing cattle to this country. This could be done at little cost or inconvenience; and in this way, no doubt, they would get rid of a fruitful cause of disease. It had been suggested that the great object should he to stop the evil at the port of shipment. They could not, of course, send agents to Rotterdam or Hamburg for this purpose, but it was said they might send them to Leith, Glasgow, Belfast, and stop the diseased cattle there. On that subject, he had consulted the best practical authorities, and he was informed that the inconvenience would be very great if this measure were resorted to. In the first place, the disease usually showed itself after the cattle had landed in this country, not before. In the next place, it would be necessary to stop the droves of cattle as they arrived at the port of embarkation, often after arrangements had been concluded for their shipment. That would cause great inconvenience. He had, therefore, abandoned that suggestion. It was his intention to propose that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee upstairs; and if, after examining the whole matter, more effectual methods could be suggested of arresting disease than those provided in the Bill, there would be no difficulty, on the part of the Government, in accepting them.
  1748
  He now came to the other Bill, with respect to diseased cattle. By common law, the bringing a horse infected with glanders, or cattle or sheep with any contagious disease, into a public place was an indictable offence. But that was confined to public places; for in the case of "Cooke v. Waring" Chief Justice Erie decided that the selling a glandered horse at a horse repository was not an indictable nuisance, although no notice of the disease was given to the purchaser, whose horses were infected and died. At common law, therefore, the bringing of cattle suffering from contagious disease into a fair or market would be an offence punishable by indictment. The statute law relating to diseased animals was contained in the 11 & 12 Vict. c. 107, and 16 & 17 Vict. c. 62. These Acts were temporary, and continued to the 1st of August, 1864, or the end of the next ensuing Session. The 11 & 12 Vict, related chiefly to sheep-pox. It empowered local authorities to seize and detain any animal affected with that disease, and imposed a penalty of £20 on any person turning out any sheep or lambs infected with this disease on common land. By section 4 power was given to Her Majesty in Council to prohibit the removal from specified places of any animals affected with a contagious disease, and of enforcing the most stringent precautions with respect to the burial of diseased animals, and the destruction of articles likely to propagate infection. The 16 &c. 17 Vict. c. 62 extended only to imposing a penalty on persons turning out glandered horses in common fields. The object of the present Bill was to repeal these two statutes, and to consolidate and to extend the existing law. The Bill was divided into six parts. Part I. made it an offence—first, to turn out in any unenclosed land any diseased cattle; secondly, to place them in a field insufficiently fenced; thirdly, to take them along a highway without due precaution; and fourthly, to expose for sale in any place, public or private, any diseased cattle; penalty for such offences not to exceed £20. It also provided that if the owner of a diseased animal knowingly sell it to a purchaser, without notice of disease, he shall, in addition to the penalty imposed by the Act, be deemed guilty of fraud in making the sale, and be liable for damages to the extent of the injury inflicted upon the purchaser. Part II. repeated and somewhat enlarged the 11 &c. 12 Vict. c. 107, enabling Her Majesty to make regu-

  1749
  lations with respect to the disposal of the meat, hides, horns, and offal of diseased cattle, and to do an; other thing advisable for preventing the spread of disease among cattle. Part III. was new. It required every railway or canal company to cleanse the trucks and boats in which they carried cattle, and to water the cattle once in twelve hours. He believed there would be no insuperable difficulty in this, and there could be no doubt of the great cruelty and mischief of the existing practice in that respect. It also authorized railway, canal, and other companies to refuse to carry diseased cattle. Part IV. was partly new. The 11 & 12 Vict, authorized the appointment of Inspectors with power to seize any sheep or lambs exposed for sale at any market or fair, and to destroy the pens, litter, &c. This Act extended the authority of the Inspector to all cattle at fairs or markets, which he might examine and exclude if he thought them infected with any contagious or infective disease. This portion of the Bill also defined the local authorities, and provided for their payment. Part V. made all penalties recoverable in a summary manner. Part VI. repealed existing Acts, and declared all Orders in Council now in force not to be affected. The Act was made to extend to Scotland and Ireland. He believed he had now stated the object and the nature of the Bill. As he stated at the commencement, he was fully aware of the great difficulty and delicacy of the task, but, being aware of the enormous evils that existed, they ought not to rest satisfied until they took such means as were in their power to check and remedy them. He now moved the second reading of these Bills, and, if the House agreed to that, he should move that they be referred to a Select Committee.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Cattle Diseases Prevention Bill be now read the second time."—(Mr. H. A. Bruce.)
  MR. PACKEsaid, the hon. Gentleman had not only drawn a true but melancholy picture of the diseased state of our cattle. Free trade, they had often been told, was a blessing to the country; but with regard to the importation of cattle it was a curse, because they heard but very little of it before 1844, when the first cattle insurance company was originated. The high price of meat was attributed by many to increased consumption; but he considered it
  1750
  was owing to the disease, for whilst beef and mutton had gone up in price, pork was unusually low. The foot and mouth disease, though it was not so fatal as pleuropneumonia, had a most serious effect on the prosperity of the grazier, for there was scarcely a beast that was brought to the fair or market that did not show the disease in a fortnight after it had been turned into the pastures after its purchase. He Lad, however, not much faith in their being able to stem the mischief, which had been produced by the adoption of the late Sir Robert Peel's free trade measure.
  MR. CAIRDsaid, it would be erroneous to attribute the increase of disease solely to the importation of foreign cattle under free trade; it might with equal truth be attributed to the artificial state in which we kept our cattle and their high feeding. The high price of butchers' meat occasioned by the increased consumption, had the effect of inducing farmers to develop the meat-producing powers as much and as quickly as possible, and the consequence was that cattle, instead of being kept till they were seven or eight years old, were killed in the majority of cases about two years old. He had no hesitation in saying that the development of disease arose, in a great measure, from that highly artificial state, much more than from the importation of foreign cattle, and it was no exaggeration to say that all the meat brought to market was in consequence in a partially diseased state. As a counter-statement to that made by the Under Secretary of State relative to the injury arising from the use of diseased meat, it was but right to state that since the increased consumption of meat by the working classes, owing to the increased wages, the insurance tables showed increasing longevity. Professor Gamgee was at the beginning, the middle, and the end of the hon. Gentleman's speech, and he cautioned him against being guided by Professor Gamgee's opinion as a practical man; for the introduction of the foot and mouth disease into the schedule was no evidence of any practical knowledge being employed in the preparation of the Bill. The foot and mouth disease was of a temporary character, and generally passed off in the course of a week. It was an inconvenience and a loss which they must put up with. He hoped a distinction would be taken between different kinds of markets. A store market where lean cattle were bought for fattening, and a stock market where the cattle were bought for

  1751
  immediate slaughtering, were very different. It was alleged that there would be a difficulty in inspecting the ports of departure in Scotland and Ireland. It was well known that some of the best cattle came from Scotland and from Ireland. These cattle might be in perfect health when shipped, and yet be rejected when they arrived in London in consequence of disease contracted in the passage. That must be considered, as the owner in such a case could not be considered as accountable for sending diseased cattle to market. A Bill of a somewhat similar character had been proposed some years back, and was referred to a Select Committee, who, after hearing evidence, decided that it was inexpedient to legislate in the manner proposed. He thought it not unlikely that a similar opinion might be pronounced upon this Bill. At the same time, it was possible that the Bill might be modified so as to be made a useful measure, and therefore it was right that the subject should be inquired into.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he had listened with much pleasure to the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Home Department, but was rather inclined to agree with the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, that some of the statements which had been put forth were rather highly coloured. Upon the present occasion he would only remark that, as the only mode of proceeding was by Order in Council, those Orders in Council should, except in cases of emergency, be published some time before being put in force, in order that there might not be undue injury inflicted upon legitimate trade. He would also suggest that it would be advisable to license dealers who would exercise a watchful supervision over the proceedings of unscrupulous dealers. He feared that the system of inspection must be carried to a highly inquisitorial extent, unless it was accompanied by a system of licensed dealers, who would discountenance improper dealings on the part of others.
  MR. HOLLANDsaid, that the Bill introduced last year for the prevention of contagious diseases in sheep originated with him, and not with Professor Gamgee. He desired to remind the hon. Member for Leicestershire (Mr. Packe), that long before foreign cattle were imported into this country very extensive disease had prevailed among our cattle. He might mention 88 an instance the murrain which prevailed in the middle of the last century,
  1752
  and which was so remarkable as to be mentioned in a Royal Speech. He hoped the Committee to which these Bills would be referred would thoroughly consider the subject of inspection. At present the Inspectors at some of the ports were broken-down tradesmen, quite ignorant of their duties, and only appointed because they had friends who were members of the corporation.
  MAJOR HAMILTONhoped the hon. Gentleman who had introduced the Bill would give him a pledge to allow the Highland Society of Scotland to have a fair discussion on the subject before the Committee.
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONS, as a magistrate of London, had had experience of the great extent to which the trade in unsound meat was carried on in the metropolis, notwithstanding all the efforts of the corporation to repress it. The present law was inadequate to meet the evil, it was almost impossible to convict the really guilty parties, and something should be done to put an end to practices which were so injurious to the public.
  SIR WILLIAM MILESsaid, that the Under Secretary for the Home Department deserved their thanks for introducing these Bills at the earliest possible moment. No one was more convinced than he (Sir William Miles) of the necessity of legislating for the prevention of the transfer of diseased cattle and the sale of infectious and poisonous meat. The means of transit were now so quick between the metropolis and different parts of the country, that diseased meat could be readily sent up to the metropolis for consumption. Considerable difficulties would be found when the Bill got into Committee, but he hoped that the whole question of diseases would be gone into, and the cure of those diseases. The evidence should be taken, not only from the north of England, but from all parts of the country, and especially from Wiltshire, where the last epidemic prevailed. He trusted that the result would be the production of a good practical measure, which would prevent the farmers from being injured by the transmission of disease from one part of the country to another. There would be the greatest difficulty in dealing with the foot and mouth disease; but as to the other diseases mentioned in the schedule he hoped that some sound legislation would be adopted.
  MR. PAGEThoped that the Committee would give their attention to the foot and mouth disease, which was a disease of a most serious character.
  SIR MICHAEL SHAW STEWARTregretted that further time had not been given for the consideration of the matter. He feared that the Bill, if passed in its present shape, would completely paralyze the operations of the farmers and graziers of Scotland, and therefore ample time should be allowed for them to consider it.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he hoped it would be understood that the Committee would be allowed to take evidence, and would not merely be limited to a consideration of these Bills. [Mr. H. A. BRUCE assented.] The statement of the Under Secretary, that one-fifth of the meat consumed in this country was diseased, was of so grave a nature that, if it were well founded, very serious inquiry was needed. He saw an enormous evil stated to exist, and he feared there would be found great difficulty in deciding how to deal with it. If the disease was imported from abroad, he was sorry that the evil had not been met by stopping the importation of foreign cattle. Inspection on arrival was not an easy task, for lung disease in an incipient state could only be detected by auscultation, and a nice treat it must be for an Inspector to go about with a stethoscope among a herd of wild bullocks.
  Motion agreed to
  Bill read 2°; and Cattle, &c., Importation Bill read 2°; both Bills committed to a Select Committee.
  And, on March 18, Committee nominated as follows:—
  Mr. BRUCE, Lord NAAS, Mr. CAIRD, Mr. LEADER, Mr. MILLER, Mr. LESLIE, Mr. HODGKINSON, Mr. HUNT, Mr. THOMPSON, Colonel BARTTELOT, Mr. HOLLAND, Mr. BENTINCK, Mr. Cox, Sir WILLIAM MILES, Mr. Alderman SALOMONS, Mr. ALGERNON EGERTON, and Sir THOMAS BURKE:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.
  And, on April 8th, Mr. JOSEPH EWART and Mr. BEERCROFT added.
  House adjourned at Ten minutes before Six o'clock.