Sitting of 9 February 1866

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Public Accounts nominated.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolutions reported—Bills ordered—National Debt Acts*; Savings Banks and Post Office Savings Banks Acts.
First Reading—National Debt Reduction * [4]; Savings Banks and Post Office Savings Banks * [5.]

THE CATTLE PLAGUE.

  POSTPONEMENT OF QUESTION.
  MR. WALDEGRAVE-LESLIEsaid, he should postpone till Monday his Question as to the intention of the Government in respect to giving compensation for stock, hides, horns, &c, destroyed or buried by direction of Cattle Plague Inspectors, acting under Orders in Council.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he thanked his hon. Friend. It would be more convenient to postpone the Question till he made a general statement as to the intentions of the Government.

LAW OF HYPOTHEC—QUESTION.
MR. CARNEGIEsaid, he wished to ask the Lord Advocate, Whether it is his intention to bring in any measure in regard to the Law of Hypothec in Scotland?
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, it was the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill in conformity with the recommendation of the Commissioners.

THE REFORM BILL.—QUESTION.
MR. H. BERKELEYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in conjunction with
306
the information recommended to be procured in Her Majesty's Speech in reference to the rights of Voting in the Elections of Members to serve in Parliament, it will not be deemed necessary by Her Majesty's Government to inquire into the causes which at present prevent so large a portion of the Electors from Voting, and encourage so large a portion to traffic with the Franchise; and whether such an inquiry be not necessary previous to the creation of a Reform Bill?
SIR GEORGE GREY: I can only say that Her Majesty's Government have called for such information as they think necessary in order to lay before the House a Bill on the subject.
VISCOUNT CRANBOURNE: I wish to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he will state to the House the exact nature of the Returns upon the subject of the rights of voting, which are in course of collection by the Government? I hope I may ask Her Majesty's Government to give an answer in detail, as my object is to enable hon. Members to move for supplemental Returns in case those produced by the Government should not be deemed sufficient.
SIR GEORGE GREY: Those Returns will, I hope, be soon completed; and it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to lay them before the House when they shall be completed. It is better, therefore, to wait for the Returns themselves, as it would be very difficult to give in detail correct information on the subject referred to by the noble Lord. Before communicating the Returns to the House we wish ourselves to be assured of their accuracy.
VISCOUNT CRANBOURNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay the circulars on the table?
SIR GEORGE GREY: It will he better to lay the Returns, and all the papers connected with them, on the table at the same time.
LORD ELCHO: I wish to ask the right hon Baronet whether the Returns referred to by the noble Lord the Member for Stamford will be laid on the table before the Reform Bill is introduced by the Government?
SIR GEORGE GREY: Those Returns will be laid on the table as soon as they are in a condition to be laid before the House. I am not in a position to say when the Reform Bill will be introduced; and, therefore, it is impossible for me to

307
say what the interval may be between the production of the Returns and the introduction of the Bill.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.—QUESTION.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is not by accident and inadvertence that, in giving notice lately of intended Motions, by Government precedence, he fixed one of them for a Members' ballot night, Tuesday, the 13th; and, whether he has any intention of claiming any right on the part of the Government to give such notice for Tuesdays, without taking their chance of the ballot in common with other Members?
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he could assure the hon. Member that he had no intention of claiming any precedence for the Government on Tuesday nights. He gave his notice without reference to the fact of that particular day being the ballot day, and it was not until he knew of the hon. Member's notice that he had observed the coincidence. He had communicated privately with the right hon. Member for Droitwich to state that he should be quite willing that the right hon. Baronet's and hon. Members' notices should take precedence of his. [Sir JOHN PAKINGTON: Hear, hear!]
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, that the right hon. Baronet's explanation was perfectly satisfactory.

LOSS OF THE "LONDON."—QUESTION.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade a Question of which I have not given him notice—namely, Whether it is true that counsel, who appeared on behalf of the relatives of persons lost in the London, at the inquiry into the melancholy circumstances of the loss of that ship, retired from the investigation on the ground that he was forbidden to cross-examine witnesses; and I beg further to ask, whether, if it be true, the right hon. Gentleman is of opinion that such an inquiry can be attended with beneficial results as regards the future safety of Her Majesty's subjects travelling by sea?
MR. MILNER GIBSON: I have not received any information on the subject to which the right hon. Baronet refers. I shall, however, make inquiries, and give the right hon. Baronet a full reply on a future day.

COLLECTION OF TAXES.—QUESTION.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER moved that the House at its rising do adjourn till Monday. He said that, Committee of Supply not being yet appointed, it was necessary he should do so in order to give hon. Members an opportunity of bringing certain subjects under the notice of the House.
Moved, That the House at rising do adjourn till Monday next.
MR. CHARLES FORSTERsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is his intention, in the present Session, to re-introduce the measure which he proposed in the Session of 1864, relating to the collection of taxes? There was considerable grievance, both to taxpayers and collectors, under the present system, and gentlemen were often nominated to the office of tax collectors when such a nomination was not in accordance with their social position. In 1864, a measure had been brought forward with the view of providing a remedy, and though the measure was not successful, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had expressed his readiness to apply a remedy on an early occasion.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: My hon. Friend who has put the Question to me is already aware that I take the same view of the merits of the case as he does himself. In my opinion the present system of assessing and collecting the Queen's taxes is a most defective one. To the local jurisdiction relating to the adjudication of the taxes my observation does not apply. This, I think, is not only not inconvenient, but most advantageous and essential as an auxiliary to our system of taxation; but as to the assessment and collection, I have always held it would be most desirable that those functions should be taken directly into the hands of the Queen's Government. The present method is hard upon the taxpayers, and in a large majority of cases upon the persons who discharge the functions of the collection, it being in general a laborious office, of a vexatious character, with small remuneration; the discharge of its duties, which is compulsory by law, amounting in many cases to a serious grievance to those on whom it is imposed. My hon. Friend has likewise alluded to the present state of the law in regard to the liability of parishes to re-assessment where the taxes are collected under the responsibility of officers not ap-

309
pointed by Her Majesty's Government. It is impossible to relieve them from that liability so long as the officers are appointed by the local authorities. At the same time, that is a strong additional reason for the alteration of the law. But I was careful, on the part of the Government, to state to the House that the alteration of a law of this kind, in order to be satisfactory, must be effected with very general concurrence. I hoped that the Bill which was introduced in 1864 would have met with very general concurrence, inasmuch as it passed through the early stages without the appearance of any serious opposition. A difficulty, however, arose with regard to metropolitan collections. There was at that time a great reluctance on the part of the metropolitan districts to be included in the provisions of the Bill, and we who were responsible for it found out that there were many reasons which rendered the Bill greatly desirable, if not urgently necessary throughout the country which did not apply to the metropolis. In Committee, therefore, we propose to exempt the metropolis from the operation of the Bill. If we had not done that we should have had great opposition in the metropolis, but then the omission we had made raised up other opponents, who said they would oppose the Bill if the metropolis were not included. The force of their arguments I failed to perceive, though I was very sensible of the force of their votes. Others at a later stage objected on broader grounds, saying that it was a measure of centralization, that it would unduly augment the power of the Government, and that they were opposed to it on that account. The result was that the Bill was rejected by a majority of four votes, though it would hardly have been more satisfactory had it passed by a majority equally narrow. Now, what I really wish is that Gentlemen would, if they can find time, examine this subject; because, though not in the least degree likely to become one of political or party importance, it is one which greatly affects a number of local communities as well as individuals. I think there will be a general desire to change the present system. With regard to the intentions of the Government, all I can say is that indications of such a state of feeling would lead the Government to introduce a measure founded on the same principle as the last, and that it would be a matter of satisfaction to them if, at an early period, such an indication should be made.

FENIANISM IN THE ARMY.—QUESTION.
COLONEL NORTHsaid, he rose to ask the Judge Advocate General, Why Drum-Major Farrell, 1st Battalion 2nd Queen's Regiment, and Sergeant Butler, 99th Regiment, have not been brought to trial, either before a military or civil tribunal, for the alleged offence of drilling parties of Fenians? It might, he said, be in there-collection of many hon. Members that at the very outbreak of the Fenian movement these non-commissioned officers were arrested and charged with having drilled Fenian recruits. To show the magnitude of such an offence on the part of a soldier, he would read to the House a portion of the oath of allegiance which these men took upon entering the army—
"I—do make oath that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty, her heirs, and successors, and that I will, as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, her heirs, and successors, in person, crown, and dignity, against all enemies, and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, her heirs, and successors, and of the generals and officers set over me. So help me God."
Now, what greater enemy could Her Majesty have than a rebel in her own army? He would also read to the House an extract from the 15th clause of the Mutiny Act—
"If any person subject to this Act shall, at any time during the continuance of this Act, hold correspondence with or give advice or intelligence to any rebel or enemy of Her Majesty, either by letters, messages, signs, or tokens in any manner or way whatsoever, or shall treat or enter into any terms with such rebels or enemy without Her Majesty's licence or licence of the general or chief commander, shall suffer death or such other punishment as by a court-martial shall be awarded."
If the outrageous rebels to whom he had referred did not come within this or some other clause of the Mutiny Act, he hoped his right hon. Friend would insert some clause in it which would embrace crimes of such a description. On being shown the documents which contained conclusive evidence of their guilt, they acknowledged the offence with which they were charged. It was expected every day that an example would be made of these two men, yet day after day passed without any sign of a court-martial being ordered. Knowing the determined character of the gallant officer at the head of the army in Ireland he could not understand why such a step had not been taken. This being perhaps the most heinous offence a soldier could commit it

311
was then supposed that the case was left in the hands of the Commander-in-Chief of the army and not in that of the Commander of the Forces in Ireland, and every one was perfectly assured that the honour of the army would be safe in the hands of his Royal Highness. Week after week, however, passed until it was supposed that the delinquents were to be tried by a civil instead of a military tribunal. At last the special Commission was issued for the trial of the Fenians, and many wretched men had been tried and were undergoing punishment for having attended the drills while those who drilled them remained to the present moment untried and unpunished. The army was at a loss to understand why these men had been kept under arrest for nearly five months, during which time no proceedings had been taken against them, and he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that no class in the army felt more on this subject than that honourable class, to which these men belonged, the noncommissioned officers. He hoped his right hon. Friend would give the House some information in reference to this matter.
MR. HEADLAMsaid, that the men alluded to would be put upon their trial by court-martial in the course of a very few days. One man, indeed, was put upon his trial yesterday, and another was to be tried to day. It might be true that a longer delay had taken place than would have been right under ordinary circumstances; but, at the same time, the circumstances surrounding the Fenian conspiracy were quite exceptional. The delay had arisen in consequence of the authorities in Ireland having considered it desirable that the trials should be postponed. Some time ago he had written a letter to Ireland to state that he thought it desirable that the trials should take place as soon as possible, and the following was the reply he received:—
"I have the honour to state that the delay arises from the circumstance that the witnesses whose evidence is material to prove the existence of the Fenian conspiracy, including a man named Warner, and a number of other witnesses, are at present in attendance before the civilian commission sitting in Dublin, and therefore cannot take part in the proceedings before the court-martial."
He hoped that his hon. and gallant Friend would be satisfied with this statement, and that he would say nothing which would fetter the action of the authorities.
COLONEL NORTH: What is the date of the letter?
MR. HEADLAM: The 31st of January.
COLONEL NORTHsaid, he was not satisfied, and he was sure the army would not be, at this delay.

THE CATTLE PLAGUE COMMISSION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. NEWDEGATEasked, When the second Report of the Cattle Plague Commission would be in the hands of Members? It was very desirable that hon. Gentlemen should have an opportunity of reading it before the discussion on the subject which was appointed to take place on Monday next.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that a copy of that Report had been laid before Her Majesty, having been received by him only the day before yesterday. He had received a letter from the secretary to the Commission, stating that the Appendix, containing the opinions referred to in the Report, was not yet ready, but that it would he in a very few days. He had requested the secretary to send the Appendix without delay; but if that were not done, perhaps it might be convenient to place the Report itself in the hands of Members without waiting for the Appendix.
  MR. WALPOLE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the first Report of the Commission is not yet in the hands of Members?
  SIR GEORGE GREY: I presented the first Report on the first day of the Session, but I am not responsible for its circulation.
  VISCOUNT CRANBOURNE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman who is responsible for its circulation?
  SIR GEORGE GREY: That question should be addressed to the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair. Of course, I do not mean that the right hon. Gentleman is personally responsible for its circulation, but some officer of the House under the right hon. Gentleman's direction must be so.
  Motion agreed to:—House at rising to adjourn till Monday next.

QUEEN'S SPEECH.

  REPORT OF ADDRESS.
  Report of Address brought up and read.
  On Motion, to agree to the Address—
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: Sir, I readily assented to the suggestion made to me last night by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because I felt the force of the appeal which he made to me with regard to the possible postponement

  313
  of that interesting question of the cattle plague on Monday night. Most sorry, indeed, should I be if any course taken by me should have the effect of postponing for one single hour the action of the House with regard to that most terrible affair. On the contrary, Sir, I do entertain a most earnest hope that the Government are at last about to grapple with this calamity; the present magnitude of which I am sorry to say I, for one, am disposed to attribute to their neglect and to their selfish fear of assuming that responsibility which, in my opinion, it was the bounden duty of Her Majesty's Government, as the Government of this country, to incur. I look forward, therefore, to the measure of Monday night in the earnest hope that the Bill will include those provisions on which I may say now there is really very little difference of opinion existing. If that Bill should not appear to satisfy the just and reasonable expectations of the country upon this most important subject, I hope that, independently of party considerations, general support will be given to the Bill that has been announced by my hon. Friend the Member for North Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt). As the debate upon the Address concluded last night, I hope that I shall not be considered as unduly occupying the attention of the House if, for a few minutes, I advert to one or two subjects of great importance in the gracious Speech of Her Majesty that have not been touched upon at all. Let me say that I make no complaint of the debate that has occupied the House for two nights upon the Address. The course of that debate has been unusual, but I think I may say it has been highly beneficial. Two subjects of extreme importance have been debated upon these two nights, one of those nights being given to each subject, and I think that I may add that those subjects have been discussed with a degree of ability and of practical talent that has been highly creditable to the first debate of this newly assembled House of Commons. But there are one or two subjects in Her Majesty's Speech, the importance of which is so great that I think it would be hardly right, and, indeed, hardly respectful, if we should pass them over without some further comment before these debates are brought to a close. One of those subjects are the unhappy occurrences which we all unite in deploring—the unfortunate occurrences in Jamaica. The occurrences in Jamaica have been in the debate entirely unnoticed except in the two speeches to which I am sure we all listened with the
  314
  greatest pleasure, those of the Mover and Seconder of the Address, and which were so full of talent and of promise. Both of those speakers adverted to the Jamaica question, as it was, of course, indispensable to the position they occupied that they should; but I think that I should not do justice to the noble Lord and to the hon. Gentleman if I were not to admit in the broadest manner that the tone and temper in which they referred to the unfortunate occurrences in Jamaica showed a degree of forbearance, and moderation, and justice that left nothing to be wished for. ["Hear, hear !"] I hear that observation cheered on the other side of the House, and I, for one, say that I heard the observations of the Mover and Seconder of the Address with sincere gratification and pleasure; and in no part of their speeches did I more entirely concur than in the portions in which they stated their opinion that it would be now premature and improper for any Member to rise in the course of the debate and enter into anything like a discussion of the Jamaica question, or the conduct of the officers concerned in it. I subscribe entirely to that opinion, and it is with that feeling that I am bound to say that I think that it would now be premature and improper to enter into any discussion of the merits of the Jamaica question or of the conduct of the officers or others connected with it. This being so, I do think that this is eminently the moment when it behoves independent Members of the House to give expression to the regret—I had almost said indignation—with which we have observed that this reserve has not been practised out of doors during the recess. That by a portion of the public press, at various public meetings, and I am sorry to say by some Members—some eminent Members of this House—the conduct of the officers in Jamaica has been discussed, prejudged, and condemned. This has been done by men who had not the means of judging in their possession, who had not before them the evidence upon which alone a sound and candid judgment could be formed, and in reference to whom, therefore, it was impossible for the Government and the public not to have felt deep regret when they heard the opinions which have been expressed. I see the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) opposite, and I say frankly, that I think that none of the expressions of those who commented upon these transactions during the recess are open to so much censure—which I, for one, read with so much regret

  315
  —there are none as those used by the hon. Member for Birmingham. I hold in my hand an extract from a speech of the hon. Member, made last month in the town of Rochdale, and in it I find this sentence. Speaking of the trial and execution of Mr. Gordon, the hon. Gentleman used this language—
  "I say from the beginning to the end it is a mass of illegality, and I believe there is not a Judge who sits upon the bench in the United Kingdom, who, speaking in his private capacity, would doubt for one single moment that Mr. Gordon was murdered."
  This might, perhaps, have been said in the warmth of public discussion. [Mr. BRIGHT: Not at all.] But I am sorry to say that I hold in my hand distinct proof that it was not, for on another occasion he used language to the same effect. At a meeting at Bradford, the hon. Member said—
  "I take my opinion only from documents furnished here by those whose interest it is to put the most favourable interpretation on their conduct, and I say that murder is foul, and that there is no murder more foul than that done by men in authority under the pretence of law; I say if murder has not yet changed its name, and be yet a crime visited with punishment in this country, then I hope that the Governor of Jamaica and his accomplices will have to stand at the bar of justice for the murder of Mr. Gordon."
  [Mr. BRIGHT: Hear, hear!] The hon. Gentleman cheers, but I am glad to find that he is not supported in that cheer. I feel with deep regret that a Member of this House, a man of the just eminence of the hon. Member for Birmingham, should have allowed himself, by party or other considerations, to be led into the use of language that is, in my opinion, absolutely unjustifiable. The use of such language by any man, before the evidence arrived in this country, and before anybody could know the facts of which he was judging, the general, the universal opinion, I say, of dispassionate men must be that the use of such language was not only indecorous, but grossly unjust. Who and what is the man whom the hon. Member brands with murder? The hon. Gentleman says murder is foul. So also are false accusations. Who is the man thus branded with the horrible crime of murder? I have not the honour of a personal acquaintance with Governor Eyre. I think he was not in the public service when I, for a short time, held the seals of the Colonial Office. At all events, I have no personal acquaintance with him. I speak of him wholly without any personal bias. But he is known by
  316
  reputation. He is known to many friends and acquaintances of mine, and I never heard any report of him but one—namely, that he is a highly honourable public servant, and that if there be one quality for which he has been distinguished more than another, it is for the humanity and kindness and good feeling with which he has treated and considered the welfare of the native races in various colonies. I say that such a man is not one who ought to be branded with the crime of murder, unless upon the very clearest evidence and most ample demonstration. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow (Mr. Graham), in seconding the Address, said that justice must be done; and I entirely concur with him, and so will every dispassionate man upon both sides of the House. But, on the other hand, let us all remember—and I can hardly believe that there is a man sitting listening to me in this House who will fail to remember—that if Governor Byre did err, if he was led into any conduct of which we sitting calmly and safely in England may feel ourselves compelled to disapprove, he acted in a most grave and trying emergency and from a zealous desire to do his duty to his Queen, his country, and the colony committed to his charge. He was led into an error, if error it be, upon reasons which whether they are well founded we do not yet know; and let us be cautious how we form a premature opinion. He acted in the full persuasion and belief that the lives of the handful of Europeans who inhabited that island were not safe from attack by the 400,000 of half-civilized and infuriated negroes. I say, under these circumstances, it is cruel and unjustifiable for any man of eminence in the country, before large bodies of his countrymen, to endeavour to excite them and lead them away from a calm decision upon this question by charging Governor Eyre with a crime such as that which the hon. Member for Birmingham has laid to his charge. I hope that the House will agree with me that these discussions should not close with out some voice being raised to protest against this premature decision, and to assure Governor Eyre, that there is at least a portion of the Members of the House, and I hope that I may say that that portion includes in it Her Majesty's Ministers, who will not shrink from censuring any part of his conduct if it should be necessary, but who will do him justice, and who do not sympathize in premature and harsh allegations that ought never to have been

  317
  made. With regard, Sir, to the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in having issued a Commission of Inquiry into the massacres in Jamaica, I feel bound to say that I am not disposed to censure or find fault with them in that respect. I do think that they were somewhat premature in issuing that Commission, and that they would have done better, would have acted with more fairness and prudence, had they waited for further explanations from Governor Eyre, and for the real facts that occurred during these unhappy transactions. I own I am not free from the fear that Her Majesty's Ministers may have been unduly influenced by that scandalous scene that is said to have occurred in the Colonial Office between the Secretary for the Colonies and a deputation from the Anti-Slavery Society. But be this as it may, I think that sooner or later the Government must have been bound to issue a Commission to inquire into these unhappy matters. I am very glad, further, to bear my testimony to the fact that I think that the Government having decided to issue a Commission I doubt whether it was possible to exercise a better discretion in the selection of the persons who are to carry on that inquiry—I say I feel perfect confidence in the gentlemen selected, and I, for one, shall yield the utmost possible attention to their decision. I do not wish to detain the House, but having adverted to one paragraph of the Speech from the Throne that I think it was really right should be noticed by discussion, I will take leave to trespass upon the House for a few moments with reference to another subject of importance, Parliamentary Reform. I think I may add that, under all the circumstances in which that question stands, we have a right to expect from Her Majesty's Ministers some declaration upon the subject. I am not sure whether I may not say that the right is strengthened by what passed this evening. We should hear something, at least, in reference to this most important subject. During the recess—especially since the death of Lord Palmerston—this question of Parliamentary Reform has occupied rather an unusual degree of public attention. It has been made the subject of discussion at several public meetings, and of speeches from several hon. Members of this House of more or less political eminence. Some of the most remarkable of the speeches delivered on this subject of Parliamentary Reform were those which proceeded from the mouths of the hon. Member
  318
  for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), and the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster). The hon. Member for Birmingham, in addressing various meetings on this subject of Reform, intimated very plainly, with great openness—and I think with great justice too—what he thought the minimum degree of the alteration of the franchise which could possibly be proposed by Her Majesty's Government. The hon. Member for Bradford also delivered a speech to his constituents on the same subject. He held very strong and decided language. The hon. Member for Bradford said—I am quoting from memory, but I believe correctly—that he thought it absolutely indispensable for Her Majesty's Government at the earliest possible moment after the meeting of Parliament to come forward with a comprehensive and satisfactory measure of Reform. The hon. Gentleman then proceeded to advise his friends and constituents on the course they ought to take under such circumstances. He told those who were in favour of the Reform Bill not to prepare a Bill themselves but to go to the Government, and tell them that they had pledged themselves as men never were pledged before—as men of honour—to legislation on this subject; and, being so, they (the constituents) would not insult them by supposing that they would bring forward anything but a comprehensive and satisfactory measure. Well, Sir, in the very same paper in which this speech was reported, I saw also announced the hon. Member's appointment to the office of Under Secretary to the Colonial Department. In what light, then, are we to regard the hon. Gentleman now? Are we to regard him as the ultra-reforming Member of Parliament, or as the meek and submissive Member of Her Majesty's Government with his teeth drawn? I beg to say with all sincerity that I do not intend to imply any disrespect to the hon. Member for Bradford. During his occupancy of his seat in this House, the hon. Member for Bradford, I am bound to say, has shown much ability and great familiarity with the many subjects on which he has spoken. The hon. Gentleman has also taken a manly and decided course of action, and I do not believe that the hon. Member has entered into any intentional compromise upon those questions in respect to which he has expressed strong and decided opinions. Well, I am not quite sure whether the hon. Member for Birmingham has not also joined Her Majesty's Government. If he

  319
  has done so, his accession to office will complete the number of the happy family who now enjoy the sweets of office. If they are to be guided by the opinions of the hon. Members for Birmingham and Bradford, I am not quite sure but that it would be better that the hon. Member for Birmingham should be also a Member of the Government, in order that that hon. Member should bear his share of the responsibility of the measure of Reform to be introduced by Her Majesty's Government. This might have the possible effect of clipping the wings of the hon. Member for Birmingham. In addition to these facts, we have had a declaration from the Government that it is their intention to bring in a Reform Bill; and I think on one occasion the noble Earl at the head of the Government intimated a determination to stand or fall by that Bill. Under these circumstances, the Members of this House, and the public generally, naturally looked with the utmost anxiety and curiosity to Her Majesty's gracious Speech for an indication of the measure in question; and astonishment must have been very generally felt upon finding the terms in which the subject of Reform has been alluded to. The language of the Royal Speech is—
  "I have directed that information should be procured in reference to the rights of voting in the election of Members to serve in Parliament for counties, cities, and boroughs. When that information is complete, the attention of Parliament will be called to the result thus obtained, with a view to such improvements in the laws which regulate the rights of voting in the election of Members of the House of Commons, as may tend to strengthen our free institutions and conduce to the public welfare."
  Now, I think we have a right to suppose that the information of Her Majesty's Government upon this subject was complete before the meeting of Parliament. But there is nothing whatever in the language of Her Majesty's Speech that can give us the slightest intimation of the time when the measure will be introduced, or enable us to judge whether the information required is to be given immediately, or to be postponed until next year. And there can be no doubt whatever that the intimation given us this evening by the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department on this subject has contributed in no degree to remove the uncertainty that prevails as to the period when this measure of Reform will be introduced by Her Majesty's Government. Under these circumstances, I feel I am fully
  320
  justified in making this inquiry as to what are the intentions of Her Majesty's Government. I do not think that this is a proper moment for a general discussion of Reform, or to enter into the question what that measure of Reform ought to be. I think, however, that this is a proper opportunity for expressing a strong opinion that this Reform question should not be dangled before the public for party purposes from year to year; but that we should know where we really stand, and what the intentions of Her Majesty's Government really are upon this subject. The information which we have this evening received does not appear to me to harmonize with the statements made by Members of Her Majesty's Government in other places; and, therefore, it becomes necessary that we should be informed by the Government what are really their intentions upon this most important question.
  MR. BRIGHT: Sir, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I do not feel in the slightest degree sore at the censure which he has just passed upon me with regard to observations which I have made upon the events which have taken place in Jamaica. I am a good deal used to the criticism of the right hon. Gentleman. In fact, I believe there is nothing which I have said anywhere—hardly anything which I have said in this House or in the country for the last twenty years—which the right hon. Gentleman has not found it necessary to condemn. I can assure him that he is very much mistaken if he supposes that I was actuated by any party feeling in anything which I said upon this distressing subject. If I had any party feeling, as the right hon. Gentleman interprets that phrase, I presume I should have been rather disposed to have said nothing that would be unpleasant to the Government and to the Administration, with whose general policy I hope to agree. The right hon. Gentleman might just as well be charged with having made a party attack upon me, standing, as he does, on the other side of the table, and cheered, as he has been, by the party of which he is one of the recognized leaders. But he charges me with having prejudged this question. Does he recollect that nearly every paper which advocates his politics in this country has been writing strongly in favour of Governor Eyre, and applauding the sanguinary transactions which have taken place in Jamaica? Does he know, further, that several speakers, well-known Members of

  321
  his own party, have spoken at different meetings in the same sense? I did not prejudge Governor Eyre. I took Governor Eyre's own statement—and I said then what I repeat now—that there is not a Judge on the bench in the three kingdoms who will undertake to say, either in private or in public, that Mr. Gordon was not clearly murdered. The right hon. Gentleman, perhaps, desired further evidence. I was content to take Governor Eyre's own statement. If it had been the statement of some paper in Jamaica, or some paper in New York—as news from the West Indies often comes to this country by New York—I should not for one moment have thought of condemning Governor Eyre, or even of discussing his proceedings. But it was when I saw his own despatch of four-score paragraphs, written with the greatest deliberation and the greatest precision, in which he stated his own share in the transaction, that I condemned him; and I put it to the House (the country knows perfectly well) whether any evidence which has since been received has in the slightest degree lessened the gravity of the charge against Governor Eyre. I recollect in this House some years ago, when the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley) sat here as Minister for India, that an hon. Friend of mine, the Member for Northampton (Mr. Gilpin), brought forward a case where an officer in the English army shot 500 Sepoys in cold blood. The noble Lord got up, not to defend it, for he knew that was impossible. He never in his life had—and he never will have in the course of his life—a more difficult and unpleasant undertaking than he had that evening, to appear to offer some sort of excuse for an atrocity unparalleled, I hope, in the history of Englishmen. There are persons in this country, many of them, who would have been glad that this matter could have been hushed up. They have not learned, after thirty years of Parliamentary legal freedom existing in Jamaica, to regard those unhappy negroes as subjects of the Queen of African descent. They were brought to that country not by their own consent. They or their forefathers had suffered every species of oppression and wrong; their cries finally ascended to Heaven, and the people of this country, outraged in their consciences by the continuance of that wrong, forced Parliament to give freedom to that black population. From the hour of their freedom until this hour it has been merely the freedom
  322
  granted by Parliament. It has not been sanctioned and guaranteed by the Assembly and Government of that island, and there are now many persons in this country, I am satisfied—I grieve to say it, I think it is a hideous thing amongst us—who do not feel the same sense of wrong and injustice when anything like this happens if it be inflicted only upon those unfortunate "niggers," as they would if white men had suffered in a similar manner. Now, I regard every life among those men—and it is right I should so regard them, every man of them, before the law and before the sovereign authority of the Queen—as important as any life in this country or in this House—and it is idle to tell me that when I stand on a platform before thousands of my countrymen, when this great question is in the balance, I am to consider, because they are black, the lives of 2,000 subjects of the Queen as nothing in comparison with the feelings of Governor Byre and his accomplices. I tell the right hon. Gentleman that it would want a very much stronger censure than his; and I tell those who sit behind him that it will want something more appalling than their cheers to keep me silent after the atrocities recently perpetrated in Jamaica. I believe, Sir, that at this moment there is not a civilized and Christian country in the world in which all thoughtful men are not directing their eyes to this country, to observe what will be the course of the Government on this question. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the Government was right in appointing the Commission, but not that they appointed it too soon. They delayed its appointment too long. I complained, in one of these speeches to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, that my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary allowed three weeks to pass from the time when he read that despatch to the time when it was announced to the public that that Commission was to be issued. I have understood that there were reasons for that delay with which I was not then acquainted. I did not conceive for a moment that the Secretary of State for the Colonies was a man hard and cruel, and unmindful of the interests of those whose interests he has been appointed by the Queen specially to guard; and now when the Commission has been appointed, and when the circumstances have been before the public, I have no complaint to make of him or of the Government. I am content now, and leave the matter for the

  323
  thorough examination of the Commission. I have no doubt that a thorough inquiry will be made and full justice done. There are others gone to that island from this country, Commissioners appointed by the public. Why, Sir, if such transactions as these could take place in the island of Jamaica, and there was no man to point a finger at them in this country, what might happen in all our other colonies and all the other dependencies of this wide Empire? And if law be not law to the negro in Jamaica, how long will law be law to the working people or to any of their friends in this country? I say, Sir, that the right hon. Gentleman has allowed, it may be, an official sympathy for Governor Eyre to weigh with him in this matter, and he has thought it necessary to give me notice that he would come down to the House and pronounce a solemn censure upon my conduct. I tell him that in all the public speeches I have ever made—and they are not a few, as the House knows—there are no passages in those speeches to which I will to my last hour more firmly adhere than to those which the right hon. Gentleman has commented upon. There is nothing in them that I have to condemn myself for—there is nothing in them that I retract—and if the "same circumstances happened again, I would repeat those passages, and, if God gave me power, with a more burning indignation would I condemn atrocities which have cast a foul blot upon the character of English Governors.
  MR. MARSHsaid, that he was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman (Sir John Pakington) bear testimony to the high character of Governor Eyre for moderation, justice, and humanity. He was glad that the right hon. Baronet had brought forward the subject, as he himself knew that Governor Eyre was remarkable for his kindness and humanity to the Natives of Australia. As to the question of Reform, he believed that no Bill would be passed that Session, and that it would be useless to bring one forward. For his own part, he was quite satisfied With the Bill of 1832, and with its marvellous results. Since the passing of that Bill a vast number of measures had been adopted by the House, calculated to improve the condition of the working man. At present, the taxation of the country was so arranged as to lean as lightly as possible on the working classes. While an income tax has been imposed on the
  324
  upper and middle classes, the labouring man paid no taxes, with a few trifling exceptions, for what he ate, for the clothes which he wore, or for his house; and he was sure that the House was not about to stand still in the course on which it had entered. He believed that it would continue to do all in its power to forward the interests of the working classes. He was sure that every demand which those classes might make would be dealt with in a fair and liberal and generous spirit. He did hope that if a Reform Bill came before the House there would be no coquetting with such an important subject, but that hon. Gentlemen would fairly and fully speak their minds. For his own part, he would oppose any measure by which the present franchise would be lowered; he had seen the effects of democracy in Australia, and be hoped and trusted that England would not adopt a system which at the other side of the world had had such deplorable results. He could see no good result that could be effected by the introduction of such a measure, and if brought forward he could only again repeat that it should receive his most humble but determined opposition.
  MR. BUTLER-JOHNSTONEsaid, he congratulated the Government on the very modest position which the question of Reform occupied in Her Majesty's Speech. In common with the great mass of his countrymen, he had had some apprehensions with reference to the Reform question, and the manner in which Her Majesty's Government were likely to deal with it; but those apprehensions were in a great degree removed when he saw the distant and modest manner in which the matter was alluded to in the Speech from the Throne. He knew that men of experience and tried patriotism may have taken the place of the veteran statesman they had been accustomed to; but, at the same time, they feared that a shadow behind the Treasury Benches might prove fatal to them. Those apprehensions were not entirely groundless; for there were certain indications which led men to fear that the Members of Her Majesty's Government might drift into the arms of the hon. Member for Birmingham, and that the offspring of this union might be the ruin of the Constitution. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bright) had told the great Whig party that if they shrunk from this question of Reform they would become extinct. Now, he believed that the Whig party would become extinct—that a Whig

  325
  in England would be as rare an animal as a wolf if that great party listened to the behests of the Member for Birmingham. He congratulated Her Majesty's Government on haying received into its ranks so valuable an acquisition as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for London (Mr. Goschen); but, while he felicitated the Ministry, he should condole with the right hon. Gentleman himself. At a meeting in the City the other night the right hon. Gentleman seemed to consider it a case of very serious hardship that he was compelled to give up his occupation as a merchant, for a position so humble as that of a Cabinet Minister of England. Like the Lycian Prince—
  "When Glaucus of his judgment Jove deprived,
  His armour interchanging, gold for brass,
  A hundred oxen worth for that of nine,"
  he might apply to him the epigram of Martial—
  "Tam stupidus nunquam nec tu, puto, Glauce, fuisti,
  Chalcea donanti Chrysea qui dederas."
  As had already been remarked in the course of the debate, nothing more strongly showed the importance of the Session on which they were about entering than the fact that up to this only three of the topics touched on in the Queen's Speech had yet been discussed.
  MR. CARDWELL: Sir, I can assure you that I have no desire to continue the discussion which has been raised with regard to Jamaica. The object which I have in view is identical with the course which Her Majesty's Government have endeavoured to pursue, and that has been, while insisting upon full inquiry into all matters which appeared to them to call for inquiry, to avoid prejudging any part of the question. I should ill fulfil that intention if I said anything which continued the discussion of the subject beyond the point to which it has been the pleasure of the House to entertain it. All, therefore, that I rise to say is, that like the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir John Pakington), I have known Governor Eyre only by the reputation which he has obtained and preserved in the service of the Crown. When I first heard, by telegram through the United States, that these deplorable occurrences had taken place, I sent for the Governor of Barbadoes, who happened to be in this country, and asked whether he could give me any assistance in explaining what these transactions meant. His reply was, "I can give you no assistance in reading this
  326
  enigma. But this I can tell you, that if the circumstances have been such as seriously to alarm Governor Eyre, they must have been circumstances of great moment." He went on to speak of Governor Eyre as a man of great courage and of great humanity. Although, therefore, I feel it my bounden duty to say nothing which shall prejudge the question, either in his favour or against him, I do think it right, in the meanwhile, to state what is a fact in the case, and that the knowledge of the reputation which he has heretofore borne should not be kept back from the House, The course which the Government have pursued has been spoken of both by the right hon. Baronet and by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, but there is nothing that has fallen from them which I think calls for any reply or remark from me. They agree on the main in approving the course which was pursued by the Government, though the right hon. Baronet thinks we were too precipitate, and my hon. Friend thinks we were not quite rapid enough. I am willing not to enter on that part of the question, but to leave it to the future consideration and judgment of the House. There is one point, however, on which I wish to set the right hon. Baronet right. He says—what has frequently been said—that he feared too much influence had been exercised, and that in the course which we pursued pressure had been put upon us particularly by a certain deputation to which he took occasion to refer. Now, the fact is that when that deputation waited on my noble Friend, who was not able to be present, and was received by me, Sir Henry Storks was at that moment on his way from Malta to this country, having received from me an intimation of the purpose for which he was sent for to this country, and of the appointment which has been so much canvassed.
  SIR GEORGE GREY: One word before the Question is put. In reference to the construction which the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich has placed upon an answer given by me to a question on the subject of Reform, it certainly never was the construction which I intended it should bear. The right hon. Baronet said it was very undesirable—and I entirely agree with him—that the question should be kept dangling before the House and the country as a party question from year to year; and I think he said the answer which I had given left it in complete uncertainty whether the Bill founded

  327
  on the information to be obtained would be presented in the course of the present or of the next year. I certainly intended to give rise to no such uncertainty. What I intended to say, if I did not say it, was that until the day for the introduction of the Bill was fixed, and until the Government were in a condition to lay the information on which that Bill would be founded before the House, it was impossible to say what the interval would be. As to the general principles of the Bill the Government are agreed; but as to its details the Government cannot, of course, lay them before the House until the information on which they are acting is complete. Of course, if that information had been complete when Parliament met the paragraph in Her Majesty's Speech from the Throne would have been in different terms. That paragraph pledges the Government to communicate the information when complete to the House. It is intended to express—and does, I think, clearly express—the intention of the Government at the earliest period at which they can do so to lay a Bill before the House founded on that information.
  MR. T. B. POTTERsaid, he had taken part in the great meeting held in Manchester on the subject of the Jamaica massacre. The antecedents of Governor Eyre were laid most fully before that meeting, and every credit was given to him for his conduct when he was in Australia. All that the meeting asked was for investigation, and the deputation to Earl Russell, of which he had the honour to be a member, preferred the same request. They judged Governor Eyre purely by the evidence contained in his own despatches. The meeting wished to do nothing condemnatory of him; they merely wished that the name of England might be vindicated from what they considered a blot on the national escutcheon.
  MR. BOUVERIE: It is quite clear, from the very oracular and mystical paragraph which closes Her Majesty's Speech, that there is to be a Reform Bill. That fact, at any rate, seems to be established. But as the information is not complete on which that Reform Bill is to be founded, I presume that Her Majesty's Government have not completely made up their minds as to what the nature of that Reform Bill is to be. Taking that to be the case, we had two glimmerings of light thrown upon this subject in the course of the last week. The noble Lord at the head
  328
  of the Government (Earl Russell) stated in another place that this Bill would be brought before Parliament before the Easter vacation—I think he said he hoped before the end of the month. He has also stated, on another public occasion, that by that measure his Government intended to stand or fall. Now, that appears to me to be a sound and proper resolution. There has been a great deal too much paltering with this question. But what I am anxious about, and the point which I wish to urge on the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, is this:—If the measure is to be one by which they are to stand or fall, by which the fate of the Liberal Ministry and by which the domination of the Liberal party in the politics of this country for some time to come is to be determined, it should be a measure which will be worth standing or falling by. Now, there is some reason to suppose, from rumours and from utterances out of this House, that this measure—incomplete as it is declared to be by my right hon. Friend (the Secretary of State)—is simply to be a measure for the lowering the franchise in boroughs and counties. On behalf of a great portion of the Liberal party in this country—and I think of no insignificant portion of the Liberal party in this House—I venture to say that such a measure would not be a satisfactory adjustment of the great question of Parliamentary Reform. I feel satisfied the great body of earnest Reformers in this country are convinced, that one of the principal evils of the existing state of things with which they must grapple is the distribution of political power in this country. None of us—if I except some extreme theoretical politicians—wish to see political power simply distributed in this country according to heads of population; but we all know that there are in existence a number of wretched boroughs, which, for some reason or other, were retained at the time of the Reform Act, but which ought now no longer to be retained. These are either purely nomination boroughs, or else what are still worse—boroughs known to be the sinks of corruption. I say no Reform Bill will be satisfactory to the people of this country unless it attempts to grapple with this evil. But it is not the mere question of the existence of these small nomination and corrupt boroughs—there is at the bottom of this question something much more important, and that is the question of the distribution of political power in this country. Those who

  329
  look at the present state of that distribution, and see where the weight of the representation lies, will perceive that where the wealth, the industry, the activity, the intelligence, and the ability of the United Kingdom lie, the weight and preponderance of the representation are not be found. I see at the bottom of this desire for Reform—particularly with the middle classes, with the manufacturing, shipbuilding, mining, and industrial classes—the people who mate the greatness of this country—I see that much of their dissatisfaction arises from the fact, that the preponderance of political power is not in accordance with the industry, the intelligence, and the wealth of the nation, but is distributed according to some method which in old times was in harmony with these things, but has long ceased to be so. Take the county with which I am most intimately connected by property and residence—Wilts. There are returned from that county and its boroughs eighteen Members—exactly the same number, I believe, returned by South Lancashire, which contains more than five times its population, and to which it cannot for a moment be compared in respect of wealth, activity, and energy. Great as is the regard which I entertain for my native county, nobody could say if the two districts were compared that the representation of South Lancashire ought not vastly to exceed that of Wilts, Take, for another example, the part of the country with which I am politically connected—the county of Ayr? It is populous, wealthy, active, and industrious—industrious in all respects that make Great Britain what she is; it has a thriving population busily engaged in mining, shipbuilding, manufacturing, ploughing, delving, and weaving; and what is the representation of Ayr? It has one county Member, the one-fifth of one borough Member, and two-fifths of another borough Member, or an aggregate of one Member and three-fifths. Well, I say that these anomalies, if there be a Reform Bill, must be grappled and dealt with. And this consideration must be borne in mind—that if you are going to lower the county franchise to £10 or £15, unless there shall be a new distribution of power as between the occupiers of houses and the owners of land, you will throw the whole power into the hands of the householders, and deprive the landed proprietors of that weight in the country which hitherto they have possessed, as representing property. I am not going to discuss the Reform Bill before it is laid on
  330
  the table, but while there is a chance—while the measure may not be yet settled—while the information is incomplete on which it is to be founded, I wish to urge this on Her Majesty's Government—that if they make their attempt with what the late Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Leatham) called "a single-barrelled Reform Bill," they will be defeated, and they will only perpetuate the evils which they seek to remedy. This will be the result if they shall listen unwisely to the charming of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), who, if I understand his utterances out of doors, has endeavoured to persuade his countrymen that it is desirable to take a one-barrelled Bill rather than wait for a reform of all the electoral abuses now complained of. I think we ought to do this thing en masse and in the whole, and not bit by bit. It may suit my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, for whom I have a great respect and regard—to profess admiration for his ability would be on my part simply impertinent—loving, as he appears to do, public appearances and platform oratory—it may suit him to keep this subject alive, for if the Bill were a one-barrelled Bill, he would still have one barrel left to load if he pleased and to discharge in this House; but this is exactly what does not suit the country, and will not suit this House. Let me assure my hon. Friend and the Government that the desire of the people of this country will be to have this question settled and done with, and not kept up as a source of uneasiness and discontent, preventing the introduction of other measures—measures for the improvement of the condition of our countrymen, which it is the duty of Parliament to pass, and which, after all, it is the whole object of those constitutional arrangements to promote. Therefore, I emphatically say—and I am sure I speak the sentiments of a great many in this House and out of it when I say so—that if the Government introduced such a measure as it is supposed they contemplate, not only will their Bill not be satisfactory—not only will it not receive the general support of the country, but they will make a shipwreck of the opportunity, now within their reach, if they seize it, of settling for the present century the question of Reform.
  SIR HENRY HOAREclaimed the indulgence of the House, whilst addressing a few observations to them for the first time. While deprecating the idea that he was about to prejudge or impugn the

  331
  scheme of the Government, he desired to say that he cordially agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. E. P. Bouverie) in what he had said with respect to no measure of Reform being satisfactory which did not present, at least for the present time, some prospect of finality. It was, however, to be feared from what they had heard, that the measure of the Government was one borrowed from the archives of the hon. Member for Birmingham. Whatever the Reform Bill might be he (Sir Henry Hoare) hoped it would not be such an one as would serve as a stepping-stone to future arrangements of a revolutionary character. He should be prepared to vote for such an alteration in the franchise as would admit a large accession of intellect and honesty; but not for such an one as would allow the influence of property to be outweighed by numbers. There were in that House a majority of sixty or seventy Members returned at the last general election to support the late Prime Minister, and it might he supposed that those hon. Gentlemen would remember the injunction, Nimium ne crede colori—that they would not follow blindly in the wake, or support the propositions of the Minister of the day. A great and eminent man, the late Sir George Lewis, when speaking some four or five years ago observed that it was the duty of the Minister who proposed a Reform Bill to adduce the evils which he sought to remedy, and to show that the remedy he suggested was likely to be attended with the results which it was intended to bring about. In framing a Reform Bill, population, intelligence, and property should be combined, and he must say that, in his opinion, the important agricultural counties had a right to look for increased representation.
  MR. NEATEsaid, he concurred in the belief that the question of Reform would not have been satisfactorily settled until there was a re-distribution of seats, and an extinction of a considerable number of the smaller boroughs. Whether the measures for a complete Parliamentary Reform should all be brought in at one time was, however, quite another question. He thought the Ministry were acting rightly if they separated the question of an extension of the franchise from that of its re-distribution; because, before Parliament proceeded to re-distribute the franchise it ought to know what the increase of the constituencies would be. Again, he thought
  332
  it would be well to have a separate measure for the counties and a separate one for the boroughs. The county franchise was different in important respects from that of the boroughs; and a man might be inclined to vote for the extension of the one though being of opinion that there was no necessity for an extension of the other. Such a person might vote against the second reading of a Bill embracing the extension of the two. Sir Francis Baring once announced in the House that it would be most convenient to deal separately with the two branches of the great question of Reform. He quite concurred in that opinion, and, indeed, he thought it might be beneficial to subdivide the question even to a greater extent.
  MR. P. A. TAYLORagreed entirely with what had been said by previous speakers with regard to the unsatisfactory character of any Bill which should deal with the franchise only, and leave to the future the question of the re-distribution of seats. In his opinion, the coming Bill should be large enough to settle the question for some years to come. He quite admitted that there was an inconsistency in bringing in one Bill which should lower the franchise in certain boroughs and another which should deprive them of representation altogether; but he endorsed the opinion of the hon. Member for Birmingham, that the people who had waited so long and so patiently for Reform should be content with any step that was definite and positive, and not wait for any Utopian scheme of perfect Reform. He did not believe that any Bill dealing with the franchise only would be entirely satisfactory; but he would accept it, because he believed, with the hon. Member for Birmingham, that in the present constitution of the House it would be impossible to carry one of a more satisfactory character. There were, unfortunately, on our side of the House a number of men calling themselves Liberals, but who talked mere Toryism, and contended that legislation should be "for the people, not by the people." Again, there were Gentlemen on the opposite Benches who were unwilling to sacrifice the seats of nomination boroughs, or boroughs of corruption. He had no doubt that the hon. Member for Birmingham had been agreeably surprised at the exhibition of sentiment which had been made in the House that evening, every speaker having tacitly implied that there was a necessity for a Reform Bill, and that a Reform Bill,

  333
  to be worthy of the acceptance of the House, must be a comprehensive and searching measure, and deal not only with the suffrage, but also the re-distribution of seats.
  Address agreed to; to be presented by Privy Councillors.

SAVINGS BANKS AND POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK ACTS.—REPORT.
Resolution [Feb. 8] reported.
MR. AYRTONasked the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he had any objection to lay upon the table the accounts relating to Post Office savings banks in a somewhat more satisfactory form than that in which they were now given. They appeared to show a profit of £40,000, whereas, in fact, there was a loss to that amount; for, as he understood the accounts, it appeared that the whole of the annuities and interest received from year to year was credited as income, while nothing was deducted for the depreciation of those annuities, which were terminable, and would soon come to an end. If, however, the amount of that depreciation, which was estimated at £80,000, was placed against the apparent profit, it would show a loss, instead of a profit, of £40,000. It was extremely to be regretted that the accounts were made up in such a manner that there should be room for misapprehension. Certainly, they were not presented to the House in the form adopted by joint-stock banks and other institutions which carry on business of a similar kind. It was necessary that there should be placed upon the table a proper annual account of profit and loss. Unless hon. Members saw that all charges and deductions were fairly set off against the income, they would be unable to ascertain the amount of profit and loss. He was anxious that the right hon. Gentleman should take into consideration the expediency of remodelling the form in which these accounts were presented.
MR. HENLEYhoped that when the Bill had been brought in a reasonable time would be allowed to elapse after it was printed, so that Members might have a fair opportunity of considering it before the second reading. The matter was in some of its parts very technical.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am always desirous to bring forward Bills of this nature, which I have no reason to suppose would call forth much criticism, before the business of Parlia-
334
ment becomes crowded. What I will do is this. I will have the 'Bills printed, naming rather an early day for the second reading. The Bills are short, and the right hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity of looking at them; and if, on looking at them, he should think it desirable that more time should be given, I will accede to any opinion he may express on the subject. With regard to the Question put by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets, I am not sure that I distinctly gather the precise nature of his objection to the form of the accounts, because not having that form before me I cannot lay my finger on any particular part of it, and therefore I cannot say absolutely what is my judgment as to any power of presenting the accounts in a different form. In point of fact, there will always be certain facts open to discussion with respect to funds which are represented in the form of Government Annuities; and, perhaps, there will be more room for discussions of that kind in proportion as we convert perpetual annuities into terminable annuities, because terminable annuities are not commodities suited for immediate conversion except at an unfavourable rate of interest. That consideration has hitherto prevented the Government and Parliament from attempting any large conversion of the National Debt into the form of terminable annuities. Now that we are becoming recipients on a larger scale of the savings of the people, it does seem convenient to apply more extensively this system of converting perpetual into terminable annuities. At any rate, I wish it to be understood, and borne in mind by the House, that it introduces elements of difficulty with regard to the precise computation of the value of a commodity which can only be brought into the market on unfavourable terms. It may be laid down as a principle that we should never convert into terminable any perpetual annuities, which we may be called upon to replace to meet our obligations. With respect to the expense of Post Office savings banks, I have no hesitation in expressing perfect confidence, that an investigation of figures, on a fair and just valuation of the assets of the National Debt Commissioners, and the Government savings banks, will show, notwithstanding the extensive security required, and the large number of branches all through the country, everyone of which is, in point of fact, an agency for the central Post Office in London, that we are a perfectly solvent concern. We do not seek

335
to make, and it would not be right to aim at making, a profit; what we do aim at is to give the depositing public every possible facility, and the State absolute security. With respect to the precise forms in which the accounts are now laid before the House, if the hon. and learned Member will kindly suggest to me the points which he thinks are weak and require explanation, I will take an opportunity of attending to them.
Resolution agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER and Mr. CHILDERS.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.
Select Committee of Public Accounts nominated:—Mr. WALPOLE, Mr. BOUVERIE, Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE, Lord ROBERT MONTAGU, Mr. HOWES, Mr. POLLARD-URQUHART, Mr. LAING, Mr. HANKEY, and Mr. CHILDERS.
House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till Monday next.

MINUTES.
Several Lords took the Oath.

ROLL OF THE LORDS.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had prepared and laid it on the Table.
The same was Ordered to be printed. (No. 3.)

HER MAJESTY'S ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.
HER MAJESTY'S Answer to the Address, reported as follows:—
"My Lords,
"I THANK you for your loyal and dutiful Address, and for the renewed Assurance of your affectionate Interest in every Event which tends to increase the domestic Happiness of Myself and My Family.
"I FEEL confident that the various Measures, which will be submitted to you, to improve the Law and promote the Welfare of My People, will receive your earnest and careful Consideration."

IRELAND—PAY OF THE CONSTABULARY.—QUESTION.
In reply to a Question of The Earl of LEITRIM,
EARL RUSSELLsaid, that there had been no Royal Commission inquiring into the subject of the Irish police; but, as a question

279
was raised a short time ago with reference to the pay and emoluments of the police in Ireland, an official inquiry had been instituted, with directions to report what means, if any, could be devised for the greater efficiency of the police.
THE EARL OF LEITRIMasked if the noble Earl would have any objection to lay the papers relating to the inquiry before their Lordships?
EARL RUSSELLsaid, he could not undertake to produce the documents relating to the inquiry, inasmuch as they were of a confidential character; but the results of the inquiry would be laid before Parliament.

THE CATTLE PLAGUE.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF GRANARDasked, Whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce the Bill carrying out the recommendations of the Dublin Commission, respecting measures for the prevention or localization of the cattle plague, or at least so much of them as had not already been embodied in the Orders of Council? The recommendations to which he referred were as follows:—
"That the owners of cattle should, in an infected district, be compensated out of an union poor rate of the union in which the infected district was situate, compensation in no case to exceed two-thirds of the value of the animal, or to amount to more than £12; that when that rate exceeded 6d. in the pound on the valuation of the union in such cases the Government should sanction a rate-in-aid to be charged equally on all the Unions in Ireland. That the constabulary should make a census of the cattle in each union, and that claims for compensation should be determined by the justices at petty sessions, upon whose certificate the clerk of the union would be empowered to pay the amount of compensation allowed at such sessions."
These recommendations, he believed, had met with general approval in Ireland, and not only required no interference on the part of the central authorities but could be put in force by means of machinery which was already in existence.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that the recommendations of the Dublin Commission were already in the hands of the Irish Law Officers, with a view to see how far these recommendations could be made the subject of a Bill.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD presented petitions from the Chamber of Agriculture and Scottish Farmers' Club and others praying that their Lordships
"Would be pleased, by Act of Parliament, to atop the removal of all cattle from one place in
280
Great Britain to another for a limited time, with the exception perhaps of fat cattle, sent, under stringent regulations, to slaughter—and, in connection therewith, to enact further, that all animals labouring under the disease shall be immediately slaughtered and buried in the skin—the owners thereof being compensated to the extent of one-half the value thereof out of the national purse, or from such other source as the wisdom of Parliament may devise; that all cattle which have come in contact with diseased animals, or which have been in the same enclosure with them, though yet showing no symptoms of the disease, shall also be immediately slaughtered on the premises, the offals to be disinfected and buried, the hides to be disinfected and sold, and the carcases also, when duly certified by the inspector as fit for human food, to be sold for the benefit of the owners—one-half of the loss thereon to the owner, to be compensated, in like manner, out of the public purse, or otherwise as aforesaid; that full advantage be taken of this compulsory stoppage of transit of cattle in order that Parliament may carry out such sanitary measures as shall extinguish effectually all germs of the disease in every district in which it has appeared, so as, if possible, to prevent their development on the removal of the interdict; and in particular, that the whole premises occupied by diseased animals, or by animals which have come in contact, or been in the same enclosure, shed, or byre with diseased animals, shall be thoroughly cleansed and disinfected, and the manure, litter, and fodder, taken therefrom, also disinfected or burnt at the occupiers' expense—that, during the prevalence of the disease, all dogs, not under proper control, shall be liable to be destroyed if found off the owner's premises; that all local authorities shall see the provisions of the Act observed, and the penalties for the infringement thereof strictly enforced, and that every person offending against such enactments shall, for every offence, forfeit a sum not exceeding £20, which the Judge, before whom such person shall be convicted of such offence, may determine."
VISCOUNT SIDMOUTHsaid, that there had been a correspondence at the Foreign Office with respect to the system employed by two Belgian practitioners for the cure of the cattle plague, and inquired if the Government would lay that correspondence on the table.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he had not had time to read all the correspondence, but he believed there was no objection to lay it on the table. With regard to those practitioners, they refused to appear before the Royal Commissioners, and the homoeopathic treatment having been tried in this country, and having been found to be no more satisfactory than what had been done by other practitioners, that refusal did not appear to be of much importance.
VISCOUNT SIDMOUTHsaid, he had been informed by good authority in Brussels that the report disparaging the treatment of the two practitioners to whom he had alluded was drawn up by certain veterinary officers

281
employed by the Belgian Government who were strongly opposed to homoeopathy. He regretted, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government had published that report in this country. To say that the treatment pursued in Norfolk was the homoeopathic treatment was not correct. The treatment of the plague by the practitioners in Belgium had some of the features of homoeopathy, but was quite different from the homoeopathic treatment which had been adopted in this country. He thought the Government was wrong in throwing cold water on experiments made with a view to cure this destructive disease.
EARL SPENCERsaid, he had been mixed up in the matter, and therefore rose to corroborate the statement of the noble Earl the President of the Council, that these gentlemen had refused to be examined before the Royal Commission, although the Commissioners were ready to examine their mode of treatment. He had subsequently received a letter from our Minister at Brussels suggesting that these gentlemen should he again brought over to this country; and his reply was that if they would come over to this country, and would consent to be examined by the Royal Commission, not only would their expenses be paid, but they would be handsomely rewarded for every animal they cured. This offer was declined. He believed that the Dutch Government had expressed an opinion that the treatment adopted in that country was not successful.

ABYSSINIA—IMPRISONMENT OF BRITISH SUBJECTS.

  QUESTION.
  LORD CHELMSFORD,in rising to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for the latest Information he has received as to the Condition of Consul Cameron and other Persons in Abyssinia; what progress Mr. Rassam has made in his Mission; and whether any and what Efforts have been made in addition to Mr. Rassam's Mission to procure the Liberation of the Prisoners, said: My Lords, I need not apologize for taking so early an opportunity of calling the attention of the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs to a subject which should be interesting to everyone who has the honour and dignity of his country at heart, and who can feel sympathy for the sufferings of his fellow-creatures. It is now more than two years since a British Consul accredited to the Government of
  282
  Abyssinia was thrown by the Emperor of Abyssinia into prison, loaded with chains, and subjected to the most cruel treatment. This long interval of his imprisonment has been filled up by a sad event, the death of his mother, which was greatly hastened by her grief and anxiety as to the fate of her son. My Lords, there was a time when the mere statement of such an indignity being offered to one in our Consular service would have roused the indignation of the people throughout the country; but it appears we are learning gradually to bear these outrages on our fellow-countrymen, in foreign countries, with patience and submission. The first occasion on which this subject was called to my notice was in the beginning of last year, when some friends of the Consul applied to me to bring the matter before this House, stating their opinion to be that the original imprisonment of their relation was entirely attributable to the fault of the Foreign Office, and that the prolongation of his sufferings was to be ascribed to the injudicious course afterwards adopted by that office. My Lords, I was reluctant for some time to bring forward such a charge, as I felt it impossible for me to do so without first obtaining all the information that could be desired from the papers in the hands of Government. I therefore applied to the noble Earl at the head of the Government, who was then the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to know whether he would grant me these papers, and I must say that the noble Earl then endeavoured, in every possible way, to deter me from bringing the matter forward. He warned me that if I attempted to agitate the question I should be answerable for the increased sufferings to which the unfortunate captives might be subjected. My Lords, with this heavy responsibility thrown upon me, I felt it to be my duty carefully to select such papers as would furnish me with all the necessary information, but which, at the same time, could not contain anything that could prejudicially affect Mr. Cameron. My Lords, the noble Earl, to my great surprise, still refused to grant me those papers without the consent of the House, and I was therefore compelled to trouble your Lordships with a Motion on the subject. Upon the discussion which took place upon that Motion, the noble Earl repeated his assertions that my interference in the matter, and my application for these documents, were calculated to increase the sufferings which had been

  283
  inflicted upon these unhappy prisoners. My Lords, I entreated the noble Earl to tell me which of all the papers I had specified would be productive of that effect, and I received from him a most singular answer—namely, that he did not say that the production of any one of the papers would be likely to aggravate the sufferings of the prisoners, but that the production of all of them, taken together, and the comments likely to be made upon them in the newspapers would have that effect. The noble Earl resisted to the last my application for these documents; I was compelled to divide the House on the question for their production, and by a bare majority I succeeded in obtaining them. I examined the papers carefully, and I am of opinion that they fully justify the friends of the Consul in the opinion that his original imprisonment was attributable mainly to the fault of the Foreign Office, and that they had taken a most injudicious course to obtain his release. I therefore felt it my duty to bring the question before the House. On that occasion the noble Earl said that
  "I had then, as on a former occasion, shown myself entirely regardless of the safety of Consul Cameron and the other persons imprisoned by the Emperor of Abyssinia if I could only throw blame on the Government."
  My Lords, this is a very serious charge, and I trust the House will believe me when I utterly deny that there is the slightest foundation for it. I felt for the unhappy captives most deeply. Indeed, it was impossible that anybody could receive the statement of what these prisoners had to endure with the indifference imputed to me by the noble Earl; and, considering that the relations of the Consul felt they had a right to complain of the conduct of the Government, a complaint which I thought was justified by the papers before me, I saw no reason why I should shrink from the duty I had undertaken of calling your Lordships' attention to them. I think upon that occasion the noble Earl might have been better employed in showing that the judgment I had formed on these papers was not well-founded than in attributing motives to me, of which, if they had existed, he must have been entirely ignorant. I shall not, on the present occasion, trouble your Lordships with a repetition of the sad history of the sufferings of these unfortunate prisoners, but will confine myself to the proof, as it appears to me, that all which has happened to them is to be ascribed, shall I say to the neglect or
  284
  want of judgment—I know not how to characterize it—of the Foreign Office; and that having been the original cause of those sufferings, the course taken is one which has proved, as might have been expected, an utter failure. When speaking of the Foreign Office your Lordships will understand that the noble Earl now Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (the Earl of Clarendon) is not answerable for any of these transactions. When they occurred the noble Earl was, I believe, not even a Member of the Government; he has only held the seals of the Foreign Office for a very short time. As I have always said, the whole of the misery which these prisoners have so long suffered, and which they are now suffering, is attributable to the fact of the Foreign Office having neglected to answer a letter which was sent by the Emperor of Abyssinia to this country, requesting that there might be mutual embassies between the two countries upon the footing of the Treaty of 1849, which was ratified and laid before Parliament. Consul Cameron in 1863 was upon the very best terms with the Emperor, and the Emperor thought it was a fit occasion to renew a project which he had long in view of cementing the friendly alliance between the two countries, and accordingly he sent the letter to the Queen to which I have already alluded, and which arrived in this country in February, 1863. That letter was unnoticed until the month of June, 1864—sixteen months afterwards. Upon the occasion of one of the discussions that took place on this unfortunate subject, the noble Earl (Earl Russell) said—may I say in a fit of unwonted candour?—he must admit there was some delay in answering this letter; but when I originally charged this delay upon the noble Earl, he rather smiled at my simplicity in supposing that a letter of that sort could be so easily answered. I will not, though encouraged by the noble Earl, do so much injustice to the united wisdom of the Cabinet as to imagine that a letter of any kind could take sixteen months to consider. I am rather disposed to think that the way in which the affairs of Europe and America were then pressing on the noble Earl occasioned him entirely to overlook a circumstance of such comparative insignificance as the indignities offered to a British Consul by a Sovereign to whom he was accredited. But be that as it may, it unfortunately occurred that the Emperor, about November, 1863, had his feelings

  285
  strongly excited against two missionaries who were in Abyssinia, and they were imprisoned. I do not mean at all to enter into their case; I shall confine myself entirely to that of the Consul. The Emperor had been in a state of great excitement because the letter he had written a year before had received no attention whatever. He was incensed at the slight and affront offered to him; he let loose his feelings on the Consul, and caused him to be imprisoned. Now, I say, as far as these facts go, that I am entirely warranted in the judgment at which I arrived, carefully weighing and considering all the circumstances, that the original cause of the Consul's imprisonment was the omission to answer the Emperor's letter. But the Foreign Office was aware in the month of June, 1864, of the consequences of this unfortunate omission, and the important practical question now is, in what manner they Bet about to repair the mischief that had been caused. I have always maintained this—that under the circumstances in which the prisoners were placed, and with the irritated and excited feelings of the Sovereign, it would be necessary that a mission should be despatched from this country, at the head of which an Englishman of some mark should have been placed, and that he should not have gone empty-handed, but charged with presents, the customary mode of approaching Oriental princes. When I suggested this on a former occasion, the noble Earl said that the notion of sending presents to the Abyssinian Sovereign was absurd, and it would only be an inducement to him to believe that the best way of insuring respect and consideration was to imprison a British Consul. I did not think that a very good answer, but I was obliged to accept it at the time. Will it be believed that since it was given the person who has been employed in the mission has been charged with very considerable presents, which he was intrusted to deliver if he were permitted to approach the monarch? Instead of sending a subject of this country at the head of the mission, the Foreign Office, most unfortunately, as I think, selected for this office a Mr. Rassam, who was the Assistant to the Political Agent at Aden—a man I have no doubt of very considerable ability, who had, I believe, assisted Mr. Layard, the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, in his interesting excavations at Nineveh; but to whom there was this most decided objection—even if he had ten times his ability
  286
  and all the diplomatic skill any man ever possessed—he was an Asiatic, and for that very reason just the person who ought not to have been selected. Am I justified in the anticipations I formed at the time, that this was an unfortunate selection? Mr. Rassam arrived at Massowah in August, 1864, and he has never yet been permitted to approach the Emperor. Shortly after his arrival the Emperor, curious to know what sort of mission had been sent from England, despatched two of his subjects to Massowah, to examine and inspect, and there they found Mr. Rassam alone, with no presents. I believe an English medical man had accompanied him, but he had gone on leave of absence, and had left Mr. Rassam alone. The emissaries immediately returned with an account which certainly did not induce the Emperor of Abyssinia to respect the mission. If the Government had been driven to this selection, if there had been no one else to appoint to this mission but Mr. Rassam, of course that would be an answer to all objection; but various applications were made to the Foreign Office for permission to go out on this particular mission. Among others, there was one from a distinguished military officer who had been engaged on very delicate diplomatic missions in the East—Sir William Coghlan. There were also other persons I might mention; but I think it quite sufficient to say that the selection made was not likely to be palatable to the Sovereign of Abyssina, nor to meet with his approbation. The Government, however, persisted in the selection of Mr. Rassam, and the consequence has been the failure of the mission up to this time, and from the last accounts received of the unfortunate prisoners it appears that they were still chained hand and foot. Whether there have been any occasional remissions in the severity of their confinement, I am not aware; but this was the account received respecting them down to so late a date as November last. I wish to know particularly what the Foreign Office has done for the purpose of supplying the deficiencies in the mission which they intrusted to Mr. Rassam. I understand that Mr. Palgrave has been sent out; but by the last accounts from him he had been at Cairo on six weeks' leave of absence, being satisfied that his services were not required to assist Mr. Rassam. With respect to Mr. Rassam, he has applied to the Emperor for a safe conduct, which he had not yet obtained. The Em-

  287
  peror of Abyssinia had gone on an expedition against rebels; therefore, many weeks or months must elapse before the safe conduct could be used, if ever it were sent at all. Now, I trust I have fairly stated the grounds on which I feel the deepest interest relative to this matter. I am most anxious to know what are the latest accounts relative to the condition of these unfortunate captives—for Consul Cameron is not the only captive—and whether Mr. Rassam has made any and what progress in his mission? I wish also more particularly to know whether any further effort has been made, beyond the mission of Mr. Rassam, from which we may indulge a hope of the liberation of these unfortunate prisoners at no distant day?
  THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords, I felt no surprise whatever that the noble and learned Lord, after the deep interest he has taken in the fate of these unfortunate men, should have, on the very first day of the Session, given notice of his desire to receive full information respecting the condition of these unfortunate men. He says very justly that the deep interest he feels is shared by a great many persons—we are all concerned for what has taken place; but I cannot help regretting the acrimony of the noble and learned Lord's tone, which I think uncalled for, and calculated to effect no benefit. The fact is, that up to this moment we do not know the real cause of Consul Cameron's detention. The noble Lord said it was on account of a letter not being answered in proper time, and we know that Captain Cameron has said that until the letter has received a civil answer he will not be liberated; and we know also that the missionaries and others have said that the cause of his detention is an alteration in the policy of this country towards Abyssinia. Now, though I admit there may have been delay on the part of the Foreign Office in answering the letter, the fact is that no great importance was attached to the letter, because the only essential part of it had been already answered by my noble Friend behind me (Earl Russell), who said that, before the Government could agree to certain things desired by the Emperor of Abyssinia, he must desist from the scheme of conquering provinces, and must ratify the treaty agreed to by his predecessor. The Emperor's answer was that he would not give up his schemes of conquest, and would not ratify the treaty.
  THE EARL OF DERBYobserved, that
  288
  the treaty had already been ratified by one of his predecessors, and there was no occasion for the present Emperor of Abyssinia to agree to it, as it was in force.
  THE EARL OF CLARENDON: It was not in force if the Emperor would not give force to it. Consul Cameron was directed to return to Massowah which were the head-quarters of his consulate, and to remain there until further orders. Unfortunately, Consul Cameron did not obey these instructions, or the instruction of the Emperor, but remained in Abyssinia; and it was to this his not having proceeded to Massowah as directed that all this distress and suffering have occurred. We know that the bearer of a letter from the Emperor of the French was thrown into chains because the letter was signed by M. Drouyn de Lhuys and not by the Emperor of the French. Our object was to prevent intermeddling in the affairs of the country, and when we found that Consul Cameron was mixed up with them a letter was written to him telling him to return to Massowah, and there to attend to his duties. This letter fell into the hands of the Emperor of Abyssinia, and, it is said, unfortunately caused the sufferings of the prisoners to be increased. The first we heard, not of the imprisonment, but of the detention of Consul Cameron, came by rumour through Egypt. It was, then, to be considered in what manner we should proceed—whether by force or negotiation, in order to effect the liberation of the prisoners. Now, to attempt to send an army across that deadly plain which separates Abyssinia from the sea, and to penetrate into the interior of the country through mountain passes and difficulties unknown, without any basis of operations or means of obtaining supplies, would have been a vain and idle endeavour. In such case the Emperor would have carried his prisoners further into the interior, or would have massacred them, while we should have sacrificed many thousand lives. Next came the question how should an attempt be made to attain the desired object by negotiation. The noble and learned Lord says that if he had been responsible for the matter he would have sent out an important mission, headed by a man of rank. Now I think that if he had been responsible he would have done no such thing, for it is likely that the members of that mission would have shared the same fate as Consul Cameron. We have evidence for believing that the Emperor of Abyssinia supposed that by

  289
  keeping these men prisoners he would coerce the British Government into his policy. Therefore, I think that every man belonging to such a mission as the noble Lord suggested would have been thrown into chains; and I need not say how much the difficulties of the case would have been aggravated by such an event. That Consul Cameron had fallen into a state of captivity was his own fault; but if the Queen had sent from this country an important mission, and if all the members of it had been thrown into chains, it would then have been necessary to adopt every measure to obtain their release, or the prestige of England would have been at an end throughout the East. When, therefore, in the case of the present prisoners we had to decide on the selection of an efficient agent, our choice fell on Mr. Rassam. I am at a loss to account for the hostility which the noble and learned Lord has now, and in the previous Session, displayed towards Mr. Rassam.
  LORD CHELMSFORD: I have invariably said that I had no doubt Mr. Rassam was a man of very great ability. My only objection to his appointment was—and I considered it a conclusive objection—that he was not a European.
  THE EARL OF CLARENDON: The noble and learned Lord may have said that, but he has also always contended that he was an unfit person to be sent out on his present mission.
  LORD CHELMSFORD: Only on that ground.
  THE EARL OF CLARENDON: Only on that ground ! The noble and learned Lord could have said nothing more decisive—such language, I maintain, calculated to lead the Emperor of Abyssinia, if his words reached him, to think that to send Mr. Rassam on this mission was an insult towards him on the part of this country. The noble and learned Lord and the press have thus, I am sorry to say, done their best to second the failure of that mission. One would suppose, too, from what has fallen from the noble and learned Lord, that Sir William Coghlan shared with him the opinion that Mr. Rassam was not a proper person to select, but I will read to the House what it is that Sir William Coghlan really thinks of that gentleman. He says—
  "Mr. Rassam's antecedents, his status, and his qualifications are greatly misunderstood and misrepresented by a portion of the press of this country. He has been variously styled Levantine,
  290
  Greek, obscure Armenian, Turkish subject, nondescript, &c. In answer to these assertions it is but just to a very deserving public servant to say what Mr. Rassam really is. He was born at Mossul, of Christian parents (his brother is British Vice Consul there), he received his education in England, he is a gentleman in manners and conduct, and his qualifications for the peculiar line in which he has been employed during the last ten years cannot be surpassed. I speak with confidence on this point, for Mr. Rassam was my assistant at Aden during many years of trouble; a part of that time he held charge of our political relations at Muscat, and acquitted himself to the entire approval of the Government which placed him there. In short, Mr. Rassam's whole previous career well justified the expectation which Her Majesty's Government entertained in appointing him to the delicate and difficult mission on which he is now employed. The disappointment of that expectation is not attributable to any fault of his."
  I think your Lordships will scarcely, after that statement of Sir William Coghlan, be of opinion that Mr. Rassam was not a proper person to send on this mission. Besides, he was at Aden, near the spot, and much delay was obviated by his appointment. He was therefore ordered to go in charge of a letter from the Queen, and requested to put himself in communication with the Emperor of Abyssinia, and to ask for a safe-conduct. It was deemed necessary that he should do this; because if, being the bearer of a letter from Her Majesty, he happened to be put in chains and thrown into prison, an additional insult would be offered to this country. He, moreover, managed to place himself in communication with Consul Cameron, and was warned by him not to enter the Emperor's dominions unless he had a safe-conduct. This he succeeded in getting; but the document was of a somewhat suspicious character, inasmuch as it was not signed by the Emperor himself. He was, however, advised by Consul Cameron to accept it. Considerable delay took place in Mr. Rassam's departure for the interior while he waited for answers to the letters which he had written to the Emperor. The public at home became very anxious on the subject, and my noble Friend (Earl Russell) did accept the offer of Mr. Pal-grave, who was, however, informed that his mission was not to interfere with that of Mr. Rassam. It was afterwards represented that the Emperor might feel insulted if the two missions were to go out at the idea of having what he might suppose to be an inferior person, not the bearer of a letter from the Queen, sent into his dominions, and it was decided that

  291
  Mr. Rassam should proceed on his mission. I can assure the noble and learned Lord that Her Majesty's Government are as anxious as to the result of that mission as he can possibly be, and since he gave notice of putting a Question on the subject on the first night of the Session, I have received letters relating to it which I shall be glad to read to the House, although, I am sorry to say, they do not contain proofs of the deliverance of the prisoners. The first is from Colonel Merewether, and is dated Aden, January 21. It is as follows:—
  "The Victoria returned from Massowah this morning, bringing news from Rassam up to the 8th of November, and from Cameron to the 28th of September. I enclose copies of Cameron's letters to Rassam; also one from Mr. Stern to Rassam. These letters from the prisoners were received by M. Munzengen on the 16th of December. The delay on the road was caused by the messengers being afraid of the cholera, which they were told was raging at Massowah. M. Munzengen adds that he had received no news direct from the prisoners later than the 28th of September. It was said that King Theodore had come to Godjan, and M. Munzengen thought the news was authentic. When the King had come so much nearer to Metemneh, Mr. Rassam could not delay to enter into communication with him, and M. Munzengen felt sure that decisive news would very shortly be received. It was given out that the King was taking the prisoners with him, but that required confirmation. Rassam will have told you all about his own progress in his letter to you. M. Munzengen reports that Rassam left Kasala on the 9th of November, and was expected to reach Metemneh by the 20th. Long ere this I hope he has had an interview with the King and effected the release of the captives. Dr. Beke arrived here on the 10th, and, as the Victoria was proceeding to Massowah on the 11th, I gave him and an Abyssinian priest he had with him a passage in her. Some of his stores had not arrived here yet, and he cannot go up country without them, he told me; so I hope before they reach him we shall hear of Rassam's complete success, so as to render any further attempts of Dr. Beke's unnecessary."
  The next is from Mr. Rassam himself. Mr. Rassam, writing from Kasala on the 8th of November, says—
  "The head cameleer, who has been ordered to get camels for me by the Governor, hopes that we shall start this afternoon, or at the latest early to-morrow morning; if so, I hope to be at Metemneh on or about the 20th instant, five days later than I calculated upon when I left Massowah, as I did not expect to have had so much difficulty in obtaining camels.…You may get this letter about Christmas time, when I hope to be enjoying myself with His Majesty of Ethiopia. [This letter was received on the 7th of February.] I trust that I shall yet succeed in accomplishing what is required of me, and I have not the least doubt of that end through the good wishes of my friends."
  292
  The next letter which I shall quote is from Mr. Cameron to Mr. Rassam, and is dated from Magdala Prison, Abyssinia, September 18, 1865. It says—
  "We have had some trouble in getting comfortably through the winter, owing to the difficulty of getting provisions, but there has been no one ill except Rosenthal, who has been shut in for about ten days with neuralgia and sore eyes. I am stronger and better than I have ever been since leaving England. Please God, all may end well. Pray send the two accompanying letters to England, and God bless you, my brave Rassam, and grant that we may leave this horrid country together."
  Although, therefore, I cannot communicate to your Lordships the gratifying news that these prisoners have been set at liberty, it is still some satisfaction to know that they are in better health than could have been anticipated. I think the policy which has been pursued by Her Majesty's Government in sending Mr. Rassam, who is as fitted for the task as any could be, is better than would be the tempting of Providence by sending out agents who would probably share the fate of the captives already in the Emperor's power.
  LORD CHELMSFORD,in explanation, disclaimed having said anything in hostility to Mr. Rassam, but quoted the opinion of Sir William Coghlan, to the effect that Mr. Rassam's endeavours had failed; that there was nothing for it but to make another effort from England; that the long delays which had taken place had added to the difficulty incident to this matter, but that that difficulty must be encountered.

THE CATTLE PLAGUE—DEPUTATION FROM THE CONFERENCE AT ST. JAMES' HALL.—QUESTION.
LORD BATEMANrose to put the Question to the noble Earl at the head of the Government of which he had given notice, but said that he desired to preface it by a few observations on the subject to which it referred. A very large and influential meeting, composed of eminent agriculturists from every part of the kingdom, with a deputation from forty-four or forty-five counties in England and Scotland, had been held on the previous day in St. James' Hall, in order to confer together on the subject of the cattle plague, and to determine what representations they should make in regard to it to the Government. Certain resolutions of the strongest nature were passed at that conference. Although all parties and shades of opinion, as well as all classes interested in the cattle

293
trade, were represented at that meeting, and although there might have been some slight difference of view manifested on certain minor points of detail, yet. he thought he was justified in saying that there could not possibly have been greater unanimity displayed than was exhibited at that conference. It was arranged that a deputation should wait upon the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary on that morning; and the object of his present Question was to ascertain from the noble Earl the nature of the reply given by Sir George Grey to the members of that deputation. He wished to impress on the noble Earl that that deputation was not the first by a great number which had already attended at the Home Office. The county with which he was connected—one of the largest cattle-breeding counties in the country (Herefordshire)—had made representations of the same kind to the Home Secretary without the slightest result. He therefore now desired, if possible, to extract from the Government some indication of what their policy with reference to that fearful scourge was likely to be. There had already been far too much delay, and the great interests involved could not continue to wait while the Government were hearing this person and that person, and making a party question of that subject. It was not a party but a national question. Those with whom he acted did not wish to make it a party question, but to press their views with respect to it upon the attention of the Government, and to elicit some answer to the representations daily being made to them from all parts of the kingdom. If he was not misinformed, the Royal Agricultural Society of England applied a few days ago to be received as a deputation, and the Government told them that they must put it off till Monday next. Now, they had had too much putting off; and that was the very thing they complained of. There was, certainly, the promise that a Bill should be introduced into the other House. It might not be in strict accordance with the usages of Parliament that some idea of the nature of a measure about to be brought into the other House should now be given to their Lordships; but on a vital question of such extreme urgency as that, he really thought the Government might, without impropriety, afford some intimation of their probable policy. The noble Lord concluded by asking the noble Earl the First Lord of the Treasury for the Answer of the Secretary of
294
State for the Home Department to the Deputation from the Cattle Plague Conference held at St. James' Hall?
EARL RUSSELL: In reply to the Question of the noble Lord, I have to say that my right hon. Friend (Sir George Grey) has not given any formal answer to the deputation this morning. He received them, but he did not state what was the intention of the Government. The better and certainly the more regular and convenient course to pursue when a measure is about to be proposed to Parliament is to allow the Minister who is charged with the introduction of that measure to explain its provisions, and state the views of the Government on the subject to which it refers. It is, no doubt, important that there should be no unnecessary delay; but it was only last Tuesday that Her Majesty delivered Her Speech from the Throne, and the interval between that day and Monday is, I think, not unreasonable. The noble Lord says, and I agree with him, that the measure of the Government ought to be discussed with an absence of party spirit, and I trust it will be discussed in such a way that the Legislature may come to a right decision. In France and Belgium measures have been adopted by the Governments of those countries which have been in a great degree successful. I hope that the proposals made by Her Majesty's Government will be equally wise, and in the meantime I trust that the delay from this day to Monday will not be productive of inconvenience to the interests concerned.
THE EARL OF DERBY: There is one very good reason, as it seems to me, why this question should not be considered a party question, and that is, because the feeling seems to be unanimous—even the general supporters of the Government concur—in deprecating the course which the Government have pursued. I cannot help adverting to what seems to be an inconsistency in the course taken by the noble Earl at the head of the Government. During the whole of the autumn and winter the various Orders in Council have been justified by saying that it was necessary to ascertain the views of the country, and that the Government had to feel their way in order to know how far they might go—so that if they found the feelings to be strong and general they might adopt more stringent measures. Now, if there is anybody able to speak with authority on this question and represent the opinion of

295
the country, it is the Royal Agricultural Society of England. If, however, I understand aright, they requested the honour of an interview with the noble Earl at the head of the Government in order to lay before him the unanimous opinion of the Society. I should have thought that the noble Earl would have been glad to receive such a body; but the noble Earl, I am informed, has told them that although he will be very glad to hear what they have to say, he cannot receive them until two o'clock on Monday—that is, two or three hours before the measure of the Government, which will then be cut and dried, is submitted to the House of Commons. If the noble Earl was really desirous to obtain the opinion of the Royal Agricultural Society, it appears to me he ought to obtain it before Monday, so that if desirable the Government might act upon their representations. Seeing them on the very day the Government measure is to be brought in does not, I confess, seem to me a very advantageous mode of profiting by the advice of the Royal Agricultural Society.
EARL RUSSELL: With regard to the first observation of the noble Earl, I am informed that a very distinguished member of the Royal Agricultural Society, the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, has expressed an opinion that Her Majesty's Government have done all that they ought to have done. No doubt others are of opinion, on the contrary, that the Government ought to have taken more vigorous measures. I have this very day presented a petition from an association in that county—Aberdeen—which has shown so much vigour and energy in taking measures against the cattle plague, suggesting that the measures adopted in that county are worthy of consideration. If the Royal Agricultural Society had come to me a fortnight ago I might have appointed an earlier day to receive them, but when they applied to me I was unable to see them before Monday next.
EARL SPENCERsaid, he would endeavour not to weary their Lordships, but he hoped to be allowed to make a few observations upon the subject introduced by the noble Lord (Lord Bateman). He was of opinion that we had come to a great crisis in the matter of the cattle plague. In a very short time the grass would begin to grow, and it was necessary to act with great vigour during the short interval that remained, unless their Lordships made up
296
their minds to see this terrible plague ravage the country during the whole of the summer. During the discussion in the other House of Parliament, frequent remarks had been made upon the Report of the Royal Commission. He thought it his duty to make a few observations upon those remarks, and he only regretted that their Lordships had not the advantage of hearing some member of the Commission better able to explain their views. It had been asserted that the Government were justified in not taking more stringent measures by the very great division of opinion that existed among the members of the Commission. It was true that as many as four reports were appended to the Report of the Commission; but if these reports were examined it would be found that there were not such great and important differences as were alleged to exist. It was true that Mr. M'Clean, an eminent engineer and a member of the Commission, differed from his colleagues in not attaching so much importance to the cattle plague as they did. With regard to the other eleven Commissioners, they agreed as to the identity of the disease with the rinderpest, which was so well known in Germany, Prussia, and Russia, and known not only to history, but by sad and constant experience every year. All the medical men and veterinary surgeons abroad had studied the disease, and the only thing they were agreed in recommending was the adoption of the most repressive and stringent measures. As to the cure of the disease, when it once broke out they gave it up. The Commissioners were, therefore, of opinion that strong and stringent measures must at once be adopted in this country to stop the disease. They did not wish to leave the adoption of these measures in the hands of the local authorities, believing that the Government were better able to carry them out and to instruct the country in regard to what was necessary to be done. On this point they were all agreed; and they were also unanimous in thinking that the only measure likely to be really efficacious was in putting a total stoppage to the movement of all the stock in Great Britain. Then came the difference between the Commissioners to which he had adverted. The minority of the Commission—and he was one of that minority—shrank from advising the Government to adopt a measure so novel and so gigantic in its proportions as the majority

297
thought the Commissioners ought to recommend. The minority were of opinion that they were called upon to recommend some practical measure which the Government could put into execution. The arguments that weighed with them were that to stop the trade in cattle was impossible, that there were many parts of the country in which the disease had not appeared, and that the country at that time was not aware of the importance of the subject. The minority considered that the course and custom of so important a trade could not be revolutionized by a stroke of the pen under such circumstances. They, therefore, recommended measures which he admitted were not so efficacious, but which they thought were more useful because they would be carried out. It was thus only as to the degree of stringency that the Commissioners differed. This was in the month of October. He must say he still entertained the opinion that the minority of the Commissioners were right in the view they took and the recommendations they made at that time. But matters had now changed. On the 4th of November the total number of cattle that had died of the plague was not more than 10,000, while the number of deaths was now 11,000 a week, and the deaths altogether amounted to 120,000. The country was now thoroughly alarmed. Another circumstance favourable to the re-consideration of the subject was, that a change was taking place in the meat trade. There had been of late an enormous increase in the dead meat of the country, and the result was that, if it were indispensable to stop the movement of stock in the country, the trade would be able to accommodate itself to the change, while in October they would have been unable to do so. Another point was deserving of consideration. In two months' time the grass would be growing, and the farmers would be obliged to purchase their stock and replenish their herds. After that had been done the adoption of restrictive measures would be almost impossible. Was it, therefore, too much to ask the large towns to put themselves to some slight inconvenience for only six weeks? He conceived that a vast difference existed between that proposition and what was contemplated in October last, when the large towns would have had to submit to stringent measures for six months without having any very clear idea as to what the result would be upon the supply and price of meat. Still,
298
he was bound to confess that a measure restricting the locomotion of cattle could not now be recommended with the same confidence as a cure for the cattle plague as it could have been six months ago. He especially doubted very much whether the total stoppage of cattle traffic would put an end to the disease in Cheshire, because he believed the air of the district was so thoroughly impregnated with it as to be past cure, until the infection actually died out of itself; he felt, therefore, that this measure alone would not be sufficient. He would, therefore, ask the Government seriously to consider the proposals of so large and influential a meeting as that held yesterday. He thought it would be necessary to go as far as to cleanse all the places where any diseased animals had been. He agreed with Dr. Lyon Playfair who had stated that if the recommendations of the Commission were to be carried out with the intention of doing good, it would be absolutely necessary for Government to give the strictest instructions to disinfect every shed where diseased cattle had been. In referring to Dr. Lyon Playfair, he must allude to what had fallen from the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) on a previous occasion, with reference to a letter which Dr. Playfair had written to Lord Grenville on this subject; and which the noble Duke stated had influenced the Government in not acting on the Report of the Commissioners. He felt certain that Dr. Playfair had written that letter not to deter the Government from adopting the Report, but, on the contrary, to incite them to greater exertion. But time was wanted to do this, and the proposed suspension of all cattle traffic would give time for the cleansing not only of the market places and sheds, but also of the railway trucks, so that in the spring there would be no fear of animals catching the infection by being placed in infected places. He had had considerable difficulty in bringing himself to see the necessity of such stringent measures; but when he saw an influential meeting such as that of yesterday, representing all the counties in England, agreeing upon the question, he was willing to waive his own opinion, and consent with the rest to the course proposed. And even if the stoppage of cattle traffic and other measures for the period suggested failed to accomplish the one great object all had in view, still the advantages which would result from the arrangement would be very great. The disease would certainly be

299
very much decreased for one thing, and much future distress prevented. He had sanguine hopes that if the Government would take the question in hand with vigour and determination, the disease would be eradicated as it had been from France and Belgium by the respective Governments of those countries. He would, in conclusion, press upon the attention of the Government the resolutions come to at the meeting yesterday, and say that although he did not desire to see them all embodied in the Government measure exactly as they stood, yet they were all worthy of the consideration of the Secretary of State, and he would be glad to see the spirit of them imported into his Bill.
LORD WALSINGHAMsaid, he was very anxious, as a member of the Royal Agricultural Society, to remind their Lordships that a deputation from the Society had waited upon a Member of the Government two months ago, and that the proposed deputation was not the first. He said this because he feared that some of their Lordships might be led to believe that the Society had been backward in pressing their views upon the Government. As he would have an opportunity of expressing his opinion upon the subject when the deputation waited on the noble Earl, he would not now say more than that he agreed with the noble Lord who had last addressed the House.
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I regret very much to find that some remarks which I thought it necessary to make in reference to the recommendations of the Commission have been construed into an attack upon it. But the idea of attacking the Commission never entered into my head. On the contrary, I think Her Majesty's Government owe a deep debt of obligation to the Commissioners. At a time most inconvenient to themselves they devoted their energies to a most difficult task, and although they put the Government to some inconvenience in recommending a course which the Government, from other reasons, did not think it right to adopt, yet I do think the country has been most deeply benefited by their able Report, especially in respect to the immense mass of information which they have analyzed and condensed, and which they have presented to Parliament in so clear a form, and he thought he should have been wanting in respect to the Commissioners and the country if he had not stated why their recommendations had not been followed. A very
300
able and intimate friend of his, one of the Members of the Commission (Mr. Lowe), thought that this explanation was an attack upon the Commissioners; but he was sure that his right hon. Friend would be glad to learn that he had been misinformed in the observations which he had made with reference to the Privy Council. My right hon. Friend has complained of the Privy Council for not having summoned Dr. Simonds, while the fact is Dr. Simonds was the first person we saw upon the subject, and he with good reason declined to act in behalf of the Government. And with reference to another charge, I have to say that the Order in Council issued on the authority of Lord Palmerston and the noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack was simply an extension to Scotland of the first Orders issued. Then we were charged with not having found out speedily enough whether the disease was the actual rinderpest or not. That is not the case. Sufficient doubt existed among professional men as to the nature of the disease to render it inadvisable to mention the name "rinderpest." Accordingly, the word "rinderpest" did not occur in the first Order; but it was inserted in the second Order issued on the 11th August. Some complaint, too, has been made that the appointment of the Commission was delayed unnecessarily; but the fact is that there is a great difficulty in appointing a Commission in the dead season of the year, so many gentlemen are away from home. The addresses of some were not known; others were in Switzerland; and, of course, endless delays from such causes were experienced. I think that your Lordships will agree with me that my noble Friend the Prime Minister is right in asking your Lordships not to anticipate the measure which is to be introduced on Monday. The noble Earl opposite alluded to the unanimous opinion of the House.
THE EARL OF DERBY: I said there was a very general expression of opinion on the part of the House.
EARL GRANVILLE: Yes, and the speeches in the House bore out that impression; but I found, in the course of conversation, that even leading Members on the Opposition side of the House entertained the opinion that there would have been a very strong opposition to a uniform Order, and some noble Lords considered it absolutely impracticable. I cannot acknowledge that in our conduct we waited to be guided by a little rise or fall in public

301
opinion. We found that we really had not the power of enforcing arbitrarily upon the whole country measures which could only be carried out by the acquiescence of local opinion, and this feeling dictated our conduct as far as possible. The great advantage which an Act of Parliament possesses over an Order in Council is that the proposals before being accepted are well discussed, and different opinions upon the matter find expression and are read in every part of the country. But I earnestly hope the Bill will not be treated as a party measure.
EARL FORTESCUEsaid, that from personal experience, he felt bound to express his conviction that any attempt to enforce stringent uniform orders throughout the country would not only have been generally unpopular, but perfectly unworkable. There was in this country no gensdarmerie to enforce measures even when sanctioned by Orders in Council framed under the provisions of an Act of Parliament, and such measures could not be carried out unless the people generally concurred in their advisability. He knew that in his own neighbourhood, Devonshire, he had heard gravely-entertained propositions of evading even the very limited and certainly not too stringent operation of the notices given by a majority of the magistrates in the petty divisions. There had also been the grossest carelessness in many districts, even on the part of the farmers themselves, owing to the general indisposition to inform and enforce the penalties against the neighbouring farmers who had evaded the prohibitions. The state of public opinion would certainly in October and November not have sanctioned the introduction of too stringent measures; and he even now doubted whether some latitude ought not to be allowed in any Act of Parliament about to be framed respecting the movement of cattle in districts quite remote from infection. Orders could not enforce themselves, and unless they were generally acceptable to the people, there was no machinery in this country which could secure the enforcement of any orders. The enforcement of penalties would not, he felt convinced, secure obedience to orders unless partial compensation were made to those whose cattle were to be slaughtered, as he believed they ought to be slaughtered. His experience of voluntary and mutual insurance associations had shown them to be failures, and he felt convinced that terror alone would be quite insufficient to induce men ren-
302
dered desperate by losses to obey the law in such a manner as to save their neighbours' property from destruction.
THE EARL OF AIRLIEsaid, he quite agreed that no measures could have been effectually enforced if they had not met with the concurrence of the local authorities. In his opinion, instead of stamping out the disease they were only spreading the infection by sending the butcher to the ox, as the effluvium arising from the slaughter of an ox apparently sound, but really diseased, must be very dangerous in a homestead. The case of Aberdeenshire had been held up as a very bright example of what should be done to stamp out the disease. Still, even in that county the cattle traffic, although under restrictions, had never been entirely stopped, Bound cattle being permitted to travel on the sanction of the committee being obtained. That sanction, however, was only given on the express understanding that the cattle so removed, were not to return, but were to be slaughtered at the market. He did not know whether their Lordships were aware of the very singular manner in which the cattle plague had again broken out in Aberdeenshire. From a statement in The Times newspaper of that morning it appeared that Mr. Hay, the inspector for the county, had discovered that the disease had been communicated by mean3 of a pack-sheet used for wrapping up the carcases of beasts slaughtered for the London markets. If the statement was correct, that was a strong case to prove the danger of slaughtering at home, and in favour of allowing cattle to be removed under certain restrictions. The disease had arrived at such a stage that they could only hope to free the country from it by slaughtering all diseased cattle, and isolating all suspected animals until they could get a clean bill of health. He was glad to learn that the Government were going to introduce a Bill on the subject on Monday night, and he trusted that they would press it forward as rapidly as possible.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, the question was whether the Government were to put a stop to all cattle traffic, or were to permit it to take place under certain restrictions. His noble Friend (Earl Spencer) himself, at the time that the Report of the Commission was made, was distinctly opposed to an entire stoppage of the traffic; and he was supported in that opinion by three distinguished Members of the Commission. His

303
noble Friend was also decidedly against prohibiting the carriage of cattle on railways for the supply of large towns; and although he might have changed his opinion since, the judgment he came to in the first instance was supported by a very important minority of the Members of the Commission. He saw from a report in The Times of that day that at a meeting which was held on Thursday, over which a noble Lord present (the Earl of Lichfield) presided, the representatives of the Agricultural Societies of Edinburgh and Glasgow protested against a resolution being carried prohibiting the bringing of live cattle into large cities, and that was a circumstance worthy of consideration when Government had to determine whether the large populations of the kingdom were to be deprived of their supply of live meat by railway. That was a matter which could not be determined by any resolutions passed at a public meeting, but was a question for. Parliament.
THE EARL OF LICHFIELDsaid, that at the meeting referred to an amendment in favour of excepting large cities from the operation of the prohibition was rejected by a large majority. He was much pleased to hear that the views of his noble Friend who had acted on the Royal Commission (Earl Spencer) with regard to the necessity for the suspension of the cattle traffic had changed since the publication of the Report of the Commission, and he thought that the reasons given by the noble Lord for the change in his opinion were perfectly satisfactory. He thought that the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll), in remarking upon the important difference of opinion between the majority and the minority of the members of the Commission, had somewhat exaggerated that difference of opinion. As far as he understood the two Reports, the opinion expressed in both was in favour of applying uniform regulations to the whole kingdom, whether those measures were to be of the stringent character recommended by the majority, or of the milder character recommended by the minority; and he thought when he read the Reports that nothing could be stronger than the advice they contained, that whatever regulations were adopted should be applied uniformly throughout the country. It was clear that it was utterly impossible that any regulations could have been applied throughout the country generally without an Order from Government to that effect; and,
304
although he was not in the least inclined to blame the Government for not having acted with more decision up to a certain point, he did think that at a later period, when there had been a very strong and a very universal expression of opinion throughout the country with regard to the necessity for uniformity of action, it was unfortunate that more stringent regulations were not adopted by the Government. Had Government desired to have a general expression of the feeling of the country upon the subject, nothing would have been easier than to have sent circular letters to the chairmen of quarter sessions in October last, requesting information upon the matter. It was true that no suggestions had been offered by those bodies; but it must be recollected that when they assembled in the early part of October the Royal Commission had just been appointed, and that it was looked up to with great confidence by the people, who believed that any Report issued by that Commission would be acted upon by the Government. It must also be recollected that at that time the public generally throughout the country were not sufficiently well-informed upon the subject either to have given any recommendations to the Government or to have acted for themselves in the matter; and he must say that nothing had astonished him more than the difficulty there was at one time in persuading the farmers of the imminent danger of the disease. He was, therefore, disposed to think that up to a certain time it would have been difficult, if not impossible, for the Government to have acted otherwise than they had done. But when the Orders in Council were issued, leaving it open to the local authorities in the different counties to act as they thought best for their local interests, it was to be expected that they would, to a certain extent, be guided by the action taken by the Government in the particular case which came under its immediate control—namely, the movement of cattle from the ports into the interior of the country. Now certainly the action of the Government in that case was not in the direction of putting a stop to the traffic, for since the issuing of the Orders in Council the movement of cattle from the ports to the interior had been unrestricted, and, as far as the public were aware, no precautions whatever had been adopted to prevent the evils likely to arise from such traffic. It was his earnest hope that the strongly-expressed opinion of so many

305
practical agriculturists who were present at the meeting referred to, coming as they did from all parts of the kingdom, and representing so many agricultural societies and the most important agricultural interests, would have great weight with the Government when framing the Bill to be laid on the table on Monday next.
House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, till Monday next, Eleven o'clock.